Dartmouth

A forum for participants in the Standard Gauge Workbench.
David Bigcheeseplant
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:10 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby David Bigcheeseplant » Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:00 pm

Exported in to a DXF curved bulks would not be a problem as the curved bulks could be adjusted to straight sections in a CAD package but would at least give a head start in drawing bulk trackwork as you would need to add transoms too or the wider 14 inch bulks. another thing if the rail foot is exported too then a two lines could be engraved on the top of the wooden bulks to add positioning of the rail.

User avatar
jayell
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:20 am

Re: Dartmouth

Postby jayell » Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:05 pm

johnlewis wrote:
Phil O wrote:Can you post a link for the AutoCad please.
Cheers Phil

yer tis!
http://www.autodesk.co.uk/products/auto ... free-trial
And I have now spotted the option for a 32 bit version


be warned that it is only a 30 day trial, it doesn't tell you this until it is about to be install to the local computer. It is quite a big download at 2.93Gb and has taken well over an hour so far .

I think it might make more sense to buy the older version at about £20 or use the free clone this all started with.

Oops! I can no longer find the link to the older version I found earlier, so am downloading progeCad Smart as I write this
and a further edit to save another posting - progeCad Smart will not run on Win7 and as yet I haven't found any way of getting a version that will. so like AutoCAD 2014 there is only a 30 day trial of progeCAD professional available. There is no point in me getting another 'short term' application as I have the 2 open source apps to play with.

John
Last edited by jayell on Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:34 pm

johnlewis wrote:
Phil O wrote:Can you post a link for the AutoCad please.
Cheers Phil


yer tis!
http://www.autodesk.co.uk/products/auto ... free-trial

And I have now spotted the option for a 32 bit version

john


For such a complex professional chunk of software there is no point in a 30day trial unless you are fairly sure to buy it.....last time I looked it was over £3000.

If you spend hours learning it just as you get the hang it will be snatched.

Go for a free or affordable program.

By "cad is cad is cad" I mean that once you have mastered the concepts and are competent on one program it is relatively easy to migrate your know-how to another. Of course they all have their own quirks and idiosynchronies that you just have to learn.

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:46 pm

Martin Wynne wrote:
Paul Townsend wrote:Templot provides some support for Baulk Road track in that an upgrade of c. 2-3 years ago introduced the feature intended for Flat Bottom rails which enables the foot of the FB rail. This can be set by user to whatever width you want so I set 20" which is correct for Baulks in turnouts.. Printouts then show baulks and railheads together.

Hi Paul,

This will result in curved timber baulks. May I suggest that you use the FB rail option for its intended purpose to show the base of the bridge rail?

That won't help much.
I used the very wide foot successfully in my printouts and built one turnout using it as a basis.
The actual baulks were cut in straight sections at build time.
Anyway my plan to squirt the file into Cad for post-Templot process will get tried.

Ta for the shove timbers suggestion, I and probably most others didn't know that you can shove them through a right angle? I will have a play soon. Perhaps you meant that the baulks would be created as background shapes or sketch or something?

And then use the timber shoving functions to put the straight baulk lengths under the rails. I wonder if this would allow the tapered splices to be plotted?

Again my gut feeling is easier in Cad.

As you frequently tell us Templot is about track and is NOT Cad. Sadly you haven't had enough requests from BG modellers to bring in all the funny Brunel desin details into Templot.....maybe in another 32 years ;)

For some notes about laser cutting from Templot templates, see:

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?i ... id=1#p4491

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_postx.php?post_id=4515

Image

(All a bit out of date now.)

Martin.[/quote]

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Martin Wynne » Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:33 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:I and probably most others didn't know that you can shove them through a right angle?

Sure. The shove timber controls allow to to change the size and position of any timber to whatever you want, within the limit that they must remain rectangular. Here are a couple of shoved timbers:

Image

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Fri Jan 03, 2014 11:34 pm

Martin Wynne wrote:
Paul Townsend wrote:I and probably most others didn't know that you can shove them through a right angle?

Sure. The shove timber controls allow to to change the size and position of any timber to whatever you want, within the limit that they must remain rectangular.

Martin.


Excellent, you have demonstrated that that method is better than mine so will certainly be tried. :D
Nevertheless, rules for baulk road crossings , loose heels and especially guard irons need extra work that Templot can't quite manage on the face of it. Much of this detail can be done in Templot but it needs a fair bit more time than cross-sleepered track IMHO, hence the migration and finishing in a Cad Program which seems quicker. That may simply reflect my inexperience with Templot refinements.

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Martin Wynne » Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:06 am

Paul Townsend wrote:Nevertheless, rules for baulk road crossings , loose heels and especially guard irons need extra work that Templot can't quite manage on the face of it

Hi Paul,

Which things can't Templot manage?

Guard rails (check rails) can be very easily adjusted by mouse action -- overall length, flare length, end gap, can all be adjusted for each rail end. Click the real > adjust check rails... menu item. Click the ? help button for info.

Crossings and loose heels can also be customized to whatever you want.

I do get a bit irritated when folks announce to the world what Templot can't do, instead of asking what Templot can do.

Here is a curved mixed-gauge crossover (without side swapping, conventional timbering):

Image
Image

regards,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:53 pm

Martin,

I apologise if I have caused offence re "things Templot can't do".

It would have been more accurate for me to have said "things I have not yet found out how to do"

We inexpert users will sometimes adopt a pragmatic approach which may be along my lines of using Templot to do what we have learnt and then completing the task in another program if this seems quicker and/or easier.

For what Broad Gauge modellers will call " narrow gauge" I have found Templot exemplary. Also it has delivered most of what I want for mixed gauge cross sleepered track.

I suspect you may agree with me that to enable Templot to know as much about baulk road track as cross sleepered would need an amount of development from yourself that is disproportionate to the number of customers who would use it.

I thank you for the recent tips on ways of simulating baulk road using tools within the current release showing a method which may well be better than that which I have evolved.

Just now I am under time pressure with such matters as family baptism, new kitchen and tax returns etc. so it will be a while before I can apply these tips.

This thread has arisen because of a kind offer to run a laser cutting trial on baulk road timbering.

I wear several hats.....as builder of the Dartmouth model I want good mixed gauge baulk road track pretty quickly and already have a method which works but I appreciate that better routes may exist.

Amongst these routes one is to follow your tips and try and do more and better within Templot. If this leads to viable laser cut baulk road turnouts I can then don another hat as 4mm Trade Assistant in the Broad Gauge Society.

I hope that clarifies my position and thanks yet again for Templot's amazing flexibility!

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Martin Wynne » Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:29 pm

Hi Paul,

No need to apologise, I'm sorry if I was a bit ratty. Image

I'm glad you are finding Templot useful.

regards,

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:59 pm

First progress report since January 7th:
Been to Tuscany for grand-daughter's baptism, rebuilt the kitchen ( with a lot of help from contractors and Robin of Rolvenden fame); now getting my modelling life back on track.

Having solved most but not all of the Baulk Road issues and have a pretty good idea how to Templot it and build it I have turned to transverse sleepered track for mixed gauge. Quite a lot of this is required as well as the baulk road as my BG model is late period with two companies after they started trials of cross-sleepering due to maintenance issues with baulk road and increasing timber cost for new builds. Some branches in 1870 ish onward were laid with bullhead rail on chairs and both gauges applied.

Despite 40 years experience of P4 Brook-Smith ply and rivet track and some 80 turnouts behind me I was surprised to find several new challenges in doing the same thing with mixed gauge.

It took three attempts to find a supplier of consistently sized ply timbers that can be used to make 11' 6" long 10" wide sleepers with option of punching to take rivets. Probably every 4th sleeper will be rivetted and soldered with cosmetic half-chairs; others will be functional plastic chairs attached with Butanone.

I have now modified my sleeper punch to accept these sleepers. It required two shims of .3mm to guide the narrow timber accurately enough so the punch hole is central. A simple end-stop at 9mm from punch centre makes it quick to make the BG rivet holes. The inner NG holes are 18mm in from end so when all punched twice for BG the stop is moved and a third hole added. This week should see the first plain track panel completed to judge appearance etc. Turnouts will be a doddle! Anyway SGW doesn't need me to build many.

The "Olton bridge" baseboard whose photo is shewn in this thread above, note BG spelling ;) has to be shortened from 5' by 3.5" (which is a nuisance). This is required to conform to SGW rules but will also make it slightly easier to transport. It will acquire a low-level front rigged extension of some 12-15" width to accomodate the cross sleepered mixed gauge tracks for Dartmouth carriage sidings and MPD with the main NG line to Plymouth via South Hams trundling under the skew bridge, possibly with a stream alongside. This baseboard extension will also be 4' 8.5" long and must do duty as travel protector for that lovely bridge.

I must get cracking now as public exposure is approaching!

I have spent a couple of days recently with David Nicholson on Merg CBus capers. He is pretty experienced in track laying with plastic chairs solvent welded to timber sleepers in P4 and now in S7. He has caused me concern in saying that ply sleepers with solvent like Mek or Butanone on one side only have caused the sleepers to go banana shaped after time. He attributes this to the solvent attacking the ply internal glue. He reckons applying solvent to the back causes unbending but points out that that is not on after track is laid! One week after solving my supply of ply sleeper strips issue he now tells me he only uses solid walnut sleepers, supplied by a chum in the furniture trade.

I know others have laid track with ply and plastic chairs and like it. Has anyone else had banana sleepers?

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2247
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Tim V » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:22 pm

My track has been down 20 years, and I have not come across this problem.

Don't forget, Dave's sleepers are 7/4 as long, so he could get different problems....
Tim V
Scalefour News Editor

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:57 pm

Tim V wrote:My track has been down 20 years, and I have not come across this problem.

Don't forget, Dave's sleepers are 7/4 as long, so he could get different problems....


But his bananas were in P4.

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2247
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Tim V » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:38 pm

A long time ago, Dave has been working for a long time in S7!
Tim V
Scalefour News Editor

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:28 am

So, public exposure is imminent ( no not the illegal sort Noel ).

Paul Willis and Ian Everett have confirmed they want to see the progress on the Olton Bridge section of Dartmouth for the Scalefour North SGW display.

As mentioned above it has been a slight struggle to get going with cross-sleepered mixed gauge track but I now have a system that works so plain track production is under way. The necessary-to-qualify-for-SGW two turnouts are started too. It is my intention that these will be at least loose-laid on the extension baseboard in time for 12th April. I don't plan to have anything moving but one or two under construction vehicles will be stood around to give the diorama a bit of interest.

I now have to arrange transport with the BS4 hoards who are to descend on Wakefield!

Welcome relief from kitchen rebuilding :D

Terry Bendall
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Terry Bendall » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:08 am

Paul Townsend wrote:Paul Willis and Ian Everett have confirmed they want to see the progress on the Olton Bridge section of Dartmouth for the Scalefour North SGW display


A welcome addition to what promises to be a very good show. I shall look forward to seeing it.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Sat Jul 26, 2014 6:51 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:So, public exposure is imminent ( no not the illegal sort Noel ).
Welcome relief from kitchen rebuilding :D


4 months since my last post!
The SGW part of Dartmouth is coming along, some of you saw its unhatched eggs aka Templot template at Scalefour North in April.
It comprises Olton Bridge which carries the Broad Gauge (baulk road) Totnes and Dartmouth Railway over a stream and the narrow gauge South Hams Railway (4' 8.5" to the unwashed) line to Plymouth. At low level in front of the bridge are the access turnouts for the carriage sidings and MPD + modernised wharf access. This trackwork is mixed gauge gauge transverse sleepered as it was built late in the life of the Broad Gauge and provides shared facilities for both Companies.

Here are a couple of pix showing what summer is really for.
Workshop in garden_P1000963.jpg


In this the NG line to Plymouth turns left near the bottom, the rest going up is the carriage sidings etc with the lower right access to wharf.

Close-up_P1000978.jpg


You can't have too many track gauges!
This is about half built.
I hope to have the basic trackwork completed ready to move off the template onto the baseboard in 2 weeks for RailWells where I am demonstrating BG modelling.
Then ballasting, wiring, point servos and TOUs in time for Scaleforum.....

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Noel » Sun Jul 27, 2014 1:20 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:Paul Townsend wrote:
So, public exposure is imminent ( no not the illegal sort Noel ).


The thought never entered me mind, yer honour [as I have no wish to be barred from visiting Highbridge :D]. I am impressed by the look of the pointwork and look forward to seeing it at Wells. How did you sneak it into the Standard Gauge Workbench, though?

Noel
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Sun Jul 27, 2014 2:26 pm

Noel wrote: How did you sneak it into the Standard Gauge Workbench, though?

Noel


The rules require that the scenic section is 4' 8.5" long and that P4 wheels and track standards are use for ANY gauge.

Alan Turner
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Alan Turner » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:18 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:
Noel wrote: How did you sneak it into the Standard Gauge Workbench, though?

Noel


The rules require that the scenic section is 4' 8.5" long and that P4 wheels and track standards are use for ANY gauge.


Actually the rules say "may be 4' - 8.5" long" so it seems to me it can be any length you choose. If the rules meant it to be 4'-8.5" long they would have said "shall be".

regards

Alan

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Paul Townsend » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:55 pm

Alan Turner wrote:
The rules require that the scenic section is 4' 8.5" long and that P4 wheels and track standards are use for ANY gauge.


Actually the rules say "may be 4' - 8.5" long" so it seems to me it can be any length you choose. If the rules meant it to be 4'-8.5" long they would have said "shall be".

regards

Alan[/quote]

Here are published design criteria 8 & 9 :
8. The maximum length of the visible section of the layout may be 4’8½”.

9. The minimum length of the visible section of the layout may be 1200mm.

I interpret that as ruling that the visible section must be between 1200mm (47.25") and 4' 8.5"

Alan Turner
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Alan Turner » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:50 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:
Alan Turner wrote:
The rules require that the scenic section is 4' 8.5" long and that P4 wheels and track standards are use for ANY gauge.


Actually the rules say "may be 4' - 8.5" long" so it seems to me it can be any length you choose. If the rules meant it to be 4'-8.5" long they would have said "shall be".

regards

Alan


Here are published design criteria 8 & 9 :
8. The maximum length of the visible section of the layout may be 4’8½”.

9. The minimum length of the visible section of the layout may be 1200mm.

I interpret that as ruling that the visible section must be between 1200mm (47.25") and 4' 8.5"[/quote]

sorry but it says "may be"which means it can be other dimensions. If it meant what you say it means it would have said " it shall be between 1200mm and 4'-8,5" or "it shall not be less than 1200mm or greather than 4'-8.5"". I didn't write the rules I am simply using normal English usage to interpret what they say.

regards

Alan

User avatar
Martin Wynne
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Martin Wynne » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:30 pm

Alan Turner wrote:sorry but it says "may be"which means it can be other dimensions.

No it doesn't:

--------
May verb

1. to indicate that permission is requested or granted

--------

What are you sorry about?

Martin.
40 years developing Templot. And counting ...

Alan Turner
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Dartmouth

Postby Alan Turner » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:06 am

Martin Wynne wrote:
Alan Turner wrote:sorry but it says "may be"which means it can be other dimensions.

No it doesn't:

--------
May verb

1. to indicate that permission is requested or granted

--------

What are you sorry about?

Martin.


Yes but that is not particularly appropriate to this context because I am not being asked to seek permission.

In this context it is used to express possibility, as in - It may rain, it may be 4ft long, it may be blue but it could be green.

regards

Alan


Return to “Standard Gauge Workbench”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests