I used a computer program for the detailed plan (after conceptual sketching) and determined turnout sizes as accurately as humanly possible. I have a modest layout that has track elements which were dependent on an accurate plan, especially regarding turnouts. Although I agree that reality often requires modifications to plans, they can be minimized by adequate planning. Those differences can be crucial to the viability of a plan in tight or complex situations. The differences noted in turnout dimensions are not inconsequential. The initial plans are garbage in comparison. In any kind of real world project, the as-built drawings are critical to operations and maintenance. Unless the builder comes back and corrects the plan to reflect as-built reality, the changes he made to the plans as the layout was built are never recorded. This is also why I take published plans with a grain of salt - even those that have been actually built. I do not expect the final layout will match my plan very accurately. Software of course does not account for the possibility of cutting or curving turnouts.įor these reasons, I consider my plan as a guide as to what might fit where. Resale value might be a little less after curving or cutting, but I want to use my turnouts, not sell them. Most manufactured #6 or #5 turnouts are much more consistent from make to make in the distance from the points to frog than they are in overall length. For cutting, you just have to leave enough straight beyond the points or frog to fit rail joiners - and that's not much. They can still function normally after being trimmed - or even curved. None of us are perfect are translating from a 2D model to a 3D full-size scene in our mind's eye.ģ) More germane to this thread - turnouts are not sacred, inviolate objects. It's the difference between a 2D paper model, and the 3D real scene. If you claim to actually lay the track exactly as planned, I would tend to throw the BS flag - or assume a severe case of constipation.Ģ) When seeing things full size, ideas of where the track and lineside structures/scenery should be tend to change. Are your gaps between sections of track 1/16 inch, 1/8", or hard butted? Which gap size did your drawing or your software model? And how accurately? Did you lay your flex track to the exact radius your drawing used? Or is the radius plus/minus 1/2"? How accurately does your plan model your method of laying easement curves with real track? And your drawing/software most assuredly did not model the dimensional changes in the benchwork from changing humidity. In full size track laying, there are tolerances in one's work. Not necessarily bad advice at all - for several reasons.ġ) Even the most accurately scaled and drawn track plans almost always get modified when implementing full size. It's actually a neat way to interact with the design. Lay the thing out on the floor and start drawing with a pencil and placing the xerox copies of turnouts where you think you want them to go. My favorite way to plan is 1:1 and get a larger roll of newsprint paper and xerox a few of the turnouts you plan to use. A number 8 I plan 8+4=12in for the overall length of the turnout. This of course will differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. The overall length of a turnout, this is just my own technique and by no means completely accurate but it works for me, take the frog number, say a #6, divide it in half, =3, then add that to the frog number 6+3=9in for the overall length of the turnout. See the pattern? The long side of the triangle is the frog number and the constant is the 1 in. For a number 8, long side is 8 in and the short is 1 in, number 4, longside is 4 in and the short is 1 in. When you plan a switch, say a number six, you would draw a triangle where the long side is 6 in and the smaller side is 1 in. Makes it nice if you need different versions of WINE to successfully run a picky Win. EXE into a virtual container with a custom version of WINE. Neither need a full version of MS Windows to run your Windows apps. I have found WINE/WINEskin works great for running a Windows app. It makes it easy to replicate the track arrangement as use a roll printer from Kinkos and print out the plan full size and laminate it to the subroadbed. It worked pretty well, and I get a really accurate idea how everything will line up. I found planning everything in 1:1 scale and using turnout diagram PDFs from Central Valley was pretty convenient. I ended up going with Adobe Illustrator since I know that program very well. There's a learning curve to it and personally I haven't got the time to become an ace at it. I got Mac OS X 10.6 and used RailModeler.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |