Computer v. pencil and paper

[Martin Wynne]

you could always try doing the track design with old-fashioned hand drawing methods - it would probably be quicker when you take into account the amount of time you would spend learning how to use Templot. See the article I wrote on the subject in MRJ No.71, if you want to see how to calculate and plot the curves, crossing angles, etc.

Hi Martin,

I think not. You could learn the basics of Templot in little more time than it would take you to sharpen your pencil.

If you are going to "calculate and plot the curves, crossing angles, etc." manually, you could have an entire branch terminus designed in Templot before you have created one turnout that way.

Here's a simple beginner's tutorial for Templot, written by Templot user Allan Ferguson. It creates a simple "shunting plank" layout -- to follow this in Templot takes about 5 minutes:

http://85a.co.uk/getting_started_with_t ... _ferguson/

regards,

Martin.

[martin goodall]

Never having tried Templot myself (although I have seen it demonstrated), I am not in a position to comment on the total time it would actually take to design a layout with Templot.

However, there is ample anecdotal evidence that

(1) Actually learning to use Templot is time-consuming, and not altogether easy (see numerous posts to that effect)

(2) Even when you have learnt the basics, it is not always easy to make it do exactly what you want it to do (again, see abundant examples in posts and comments here and elsewhere)

When (1) and (2) are aggregated, I would still bet that starting from scratch with pencil and paper, a ruler, a longish straight-edge, a calculator and a set of railway curves is quicker overall.

Claims that Templot (or other programs) are quicker than old-fashioned hand drawing methods are entirely dependent on discounting learning time, trial and error and any difficulties encountered in the course of using the program to design a layout.

I have no doubt that Martin W can design a layout using Templot very quickly indeed, but then he designed and developed the program and is thoroughly familiar with it, and obviously the huge input of time that must have gone into that process is not taken into account in calculating the time it would now take him to design a layout with this software.

I use a computer all the time for my work, so I am not a technophobe, but I have never bought into the idea that we should automatcially turn to the computer for every conceivable task. That is what the LAMSAC report I referred to in my previous comment said more than 30 years ago, and it stil holds good.

[grovenor-2685]

When (1) and (2) are aggregated, I would still bet that starting from scratch with pencil and paper, a ruler, a longish straight-edge, a calculator and a set of railway curves is quicker overall.

Claims that Templot (or other programs) are quicker than old-fashioned hand drawing methods are entirely dependent on discounting learning time, trial and error and any difficulties encountered in the course of using the program to design a layout.

Martin,
You seem to be completely discounting the time it would take to learn this old fashioned drawing method, I would think it at least as long as learning Templot if not longer.
You can't just assume everyone knows the manual method.
Keith

[Martin Wynne]

I would still bet that starting from scratch with pencil and paper, a ruler, a longish straight-edge, a calculator and a set of railway curves is quicker overall.

Hi Martin,

How many modellers have a set of railway curves to hand? Even if you are lucky enough to own a set, how long to you think it would take you to draw a curved D-12 crossover on 3575mm radius, with skewed timbering all shown? In Templot you can get that far in half a dozen clicks from startup, and print it out full-size or any other size you like, as many times as you like.

We can argue about how easy Templot is to learn, but to suggest that manual methods are faster is absurd.

regards,

Martin.

[Brinkly]

I have Templot (although need to change it to my new laptop), and found that there is quite a lot that needs to be learnt before you can create a track plan, I personally think that both a Computer program and Pencil and Paper both play an equal part, although being able to have the track plan printed off with the correct sleeper spacing on a curve, I feel is one of the big benefits of Templot. And as the last post states drawing a crossover on a set radius I think takes a lot of time.
I still draw scale plans (1:12) using paper and pencil and then use this for Templot, but being able to just print off a 1:1 plan is excellent, or indeed a quarter scale mock up. I've photocopied the master plan a couple of times and then draw all over them which I feel is wonderful!

Regards,

Nick

[martin goodall]

I don't possess a set of railway curves, but was able to borrow a set from a friend when I needed them.

The timbering on my layout was dependent on fitting turnouts and crossovers into each other, so it had to be done the way the railway engineers did it in the old days (by 'wangling' it until it all fitted together). I am not sure whether a computer program would do this for you. So far as I can remember, I didn't try to do this bit on paper, but actually put the timbers down on the paper template and marked them out, before spotting the holes in the timbers for punching and rivetting. (I was using the Brook Smith method of track construction - soldering the rail to brass rivets inserted in ply timbers and sleepers.)

There was one part of the formation where I decided to put in through timbers covering two adjacent tracks, as I imagine would have been done on the prototype. Again, I would be a bit surprised if the computer program would do this for you. The fact is that timbering for P&C work has to be positioned and angled to fit the particular site and adjoining track. There is no 'text-book' solution, and so no real role for a computer in this.

Incidentally, my work involves a certain amount of contact with architects, and I asked one of my architect friends whether the use of CAD (which is pretty well universal in architects' offices nowadays) has speeded up the production of architects' drawings. He told me that it defintely takes longer with CAD, but the reason for using CAD is that it makes it very easy to modify the drawings, send copies out electroncially, print off copies and so on. That really is the sole reason for digitising the process. If speed of original design were the sole criterion, they would still be using their drawing boards and T-squares.

One other point which none of the enthusiasts for Templot (or other programs) seems to consider is - how often do you design a layout? Some people may do it for fun, but I have only ever turned to designing track when I am actually intending to build a layout, which at the speed at which I build layouts is not very often! (It probably works out at about three or four times a century.)

[jim s-w]

There was one part of the formation where I decided to put in through timbers covering two adjacent tracks, as I imagine would have been done on the prototype.

"As I imagine" Martin? Didnt you check a prototype? There are rules for this sort of thing but even then they get ignored sometimes. There are 2 nearly identical bits of track at New Street, one uses interlaced sleepers one uses long sleepers. No idea why and I wouldn't be surprised if there isnt actually a reason!

I tend to draw everything in Illustrator. I started off in the design world hand rendering illustrations and doing marker visuals. At least in my experience cad is so much faster. Think of it like this - if you were to stick to B9 points and ignore Templot, you would still only have to render one. You arguement about templot not doing complicated stuff doesnt really hold any water if I am honest. You dont have to stick with any print outs religiously, you can still ammend it with your good old pencil if you want to.

I am a bit unsure what the point of this topic is

Cheers

Jim

[Martin Wynne]

I am a bit unsure what the point of this topic is

Hi Jim,

It's a reply to this post: viewtopic.php?p=4938#p4938

as it's just a little annoying when those who haven't tried Templot announce what it is and isn't capable of, or how long it takes to use.

I am of course entirely happy for those who have actually tried it to say that it's utter rubbish or the best thing since sliced bread, as they wish.

Just to add that Templot allows you very easily to adjust the length, position, angle, etc., of each individual timber if you wish. You can easily run long timbers across under adjacent tracks, twist them slightly, close them up, interlace them, whatever you want. Not every user goes to this length, but it is a lot easier to eliminate conflicts on-screen and then have a construction template which you can follow to the letter (and be able to print repeat templates at any time). This is especially so for ply-and-rivet construction, where by printing on tracing paper you can mark the rivet positions from the timber/rail centre-line intersections directly onto the timber.

Also Templot isn't CAD in the accepted sense, so to liken it to CAD is very misleading.

regards,

Martin.

[Rod Cameron]

Martin (Goodall), how can you possibly comment on how long it might take you to do something in Templot when you admit to never having used it? But then you selectively refer to anecdotal evidence of people having trouble with it (yes, these people exist, maybe because they are more used to CAD programmes or because they don't bother with the tutorials, but there are as many if not more who are quite happy with it).

Templot in its simplest guise just enables you to print a turnout or other crossing or a piece of plain track. That can be done in a few minutes from startup, including curving the template if you want to, or selecting timber orientation. I could never do that with pencil and paper, even if I had a set of railway curves available, and can't really see why I would want to unless it was just for the fun (?) of doing it that way.

Yes it does take a bit of time to learn how to use Templot for layout design, as any software or technique needs time to learn, but once you have got the concept of pegs and notches sorted (the things that enable you to join bits together) and have played around with the transition curve options and timber-shoving you can do virtually any design you want. Even if it doesn't yet do every kind of formation in a click or two, such as a 3-way or tandem, you can still easily get the basic rail outline and draw the rest in by hand if you need to.

If you are happy doing it manually with pen and paper that's fine, otherwise like Jim I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

[martin goodall]

I was simply picking up on points on this very forum - see various threads passim (there have been quite a few of them). I naturally take note of reports of other peoples' practical experience, and that was what I was referring to.

What I was originally arguing against was the unthinking assumption that you automatically have to turn to a computer-based solution for everyhting.

If people use Templot (or other programs) and are happy to do so, then that's fine, but I just wanted to make the point that it is not the only way of dealing with track design.

[Andy C]

I seriously doubt whether theres any Templot or any other track plan design programme users who automatically turn to it for design. I suspect most people - even Martin W - starts off with a piece of paper with at least a sketch of what is intended to be the finished product. You want to see a notebook I take into meetings for both evidence that (a) the meeting is a waste of time, and (b) that all my plans start life on paper

Some of these progress to graph paper where there is a possibility of a layout - and its only at this point i decide whether or not to start up Templot. It all depends on the what the idea is - for example I built a micro-layout (Belfield Wharf) for a competition at an MMRS show, that was built straight off the graph paper. For New Hey the success of the project lay in contructing all of the pointwork on one long sweeping curve.





Now Im no slouch on a drawing board but there was only one way that was going to be achieved with any confidence of success - and that was by using Templot. Hand drawing over that area was a non starter.

To me its another piece of kit in the toolbox, to be taken out and used as and when appropriate for the job. I suspect most modellers treat it the same.

[Rod Cameron]

I seriously doubt whether theres any Templot or any other track plan design programme users who automatically turn to it for design.

Yes, maybe design is the wrong word, and if you were 'designing' a new layout, especially a freelance one, you would start with a sketchpad - which is the precursor to both 'manual' drawing out and a programme like Templot depending which way you are inclined.

Just thinking about the principal things that I've used Templot for:

Trackplan for Eridge Mk2, done over a scanned 1:480 station plan and 6-inch OS map (I didn't have Templot for Mk1, which was done over a photo-enlarged version of the 1:480 plan)

Trackplan in 00 for the new layout of the Wouldham Town team

Trackplan for the abortive terminus station project Camberhurst (freelance)

Crossovers (A5 to D12) and transition curves for the DRAG test track

Balcombe and Lewes, both from scanned 1:10,000 or 6-inch OS maps, for the current 'megaproject'

Various odd bits for friends' layouts or designs, and occasional single templates.

Without Templot I would probably have used a lot of printed templates from the Society, C&L, Exactoscale etc, cut and fanned out where they needed to be curved, and an assortment of string, pencil, drawing pins and 'whippy wood' a la Rice to do the plain track. Bit of a faff though.

[jim s-w]

Just to be awkward I never use paper.

I always sketch onscreen with photoshop and a wacom tablet. I have done it for so long that I find my hand is seriously in the way if I draw 'for real'

Cheers

Jim

[jim s-w]

Hi Andy

For BR era with new looking track would it not be Flat bottom? Just curious

Cheers

Jim

[Martin Wynne]

Yes, maybe design is the wrong word, and if you were 'designing' a new layout, especially a freelance one, you would start with a sketchpad - which is the precursor to both 'manual' drawing out and a programme like Templot depending which way you are inclined.

Just to add that after drawing such a sketch, you can bung it in the scanner and immediately have it on the screen in Templot as a background guide to a proper track plan. If it's sketched to a known scale Templot can automatically size it correctly for you.

Here's a web page with some video showing a small bit of track plan being created over the roughest of sketches:

http://www.templot.com/martweb/videos/f ... arter.html

The advantage of Templot over other layout planning software is of course that these are proper templates which can be printed out full size for construction. The printed templates can include a (much enlarged) print of your original sketch if you wish.

regards,

Martin.

[grovenor-2685]

Hi Andy
For BR era with new looking track would it not be Flat bottom? Just curious

Its only the ballast that's new
Keith

[Andy C]

Hi Andy
For BR era with new looking track would it not be Flat bottom? Just curious

Its only the ballast that's new
Keith

Indeed, the 1965 photos on which the layout has its baseline (the period is flexible 1960 - 68) they clearly show bullhead rail with freshly ballasted track - the joys of prototype modelling!

[TonyMont]

Hi All,

I feel I must send a great big thank you to Martin Wynne, I am currently planning a large layout (will it ever be built), yesterday morning I noticed a mistake, by selecting just over 200 of the 250ish templates I managed to turn the majority of the layout by 5 degrees and drop it down the page by 200mm. The thought of re-drawing the whole thing with pencil and paper could have sent me over the edge.

Best regards,

Tony Montgomery.