Finescale track

Hi Jerry,

For the umpteenth time of saying so, on this and other groups, and not least on the Templot web site:

TEMPLOT IS NOT CAD

If you want model railway CAD, try 3rd PlanIt, Cadrail, XtrkCad, and several others.

Templot is a workshop tool for track builders to print track construction templates in infinite variety. As a secondary function the templates can be laid out to create a track plan.

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

Much as I applaud the EM scale supporters for their efforts, I had one issue with the gauge that put me off - most RTR steam locomotives will need careful regauging to get them to work. The problem is that RTR steam locos, and in fact increasingly most stock too - have elements of their chassis (such as brake blocks and valve gear) set in line with the wheels at 16.5 mm gauge - unfortunately as the RTR stock has become finer detailed, they have become that bit harder to convert - I took one look at a Merchant Navy and decided I'd stick with 16.5mm gauge to save the problems of having to cut off and re-fix or replace all the chassis detail. That's why I decided on C&L 00 gauge - it looks much better than Peco, but allows me to run RTR locos and stock without so much fiddling. Although having said that, even some of Bachmann's vans have been a bit troublesome to get the B2B/WCG out to a workable gauge. In those cases thinner wheels that are more true to scale would have been a suitable solution - except of course for the extra cost of replacing the wheelsets, another factor which put me off the more accurate gauges - how much extra do I want to spend on vehicle? As I would like to go DCC too, I could easily double the cost of a RTR locomotive simply by adding a decent decoder and getting a better wheelset... And that's where and why I drew the line and stuck with 4 feet 1 and a half inch narrow gauge! ;-)

Ian J.

Templot is a very good program, though it takes a little getting use to the method of the interface if you're use to Microsoft programs, I strongly believe it is about the best tool there is for designing realistic track and implementing it. And as Martin says, it isn't CAD.

Ian J.

So it *is* a Computer Aided Design tool, that assists in the design of sections of trackwork, what it is not is a *layout* design tool.

One of the most important aspects that I would want is the ability to interlace turnouts and crossing, setting crossing timbers correctly etc. and then being able to divide up the resultant trackwork plan into convenient track building 'templates' - I would hardly consider that a 'secondary function', more like a prime function.

Certainly, the idea of having to start doing any serious modification work on the chassis of a loco - particularly with intricate valve gear as you say - does put me off, although I've read several different opinions on this subject - some saying that it's dead easy and doesn't require any specialist tools or new wheels, others saying its a bigger task. In the end I'm inevitably going for a compromise between something that looks as realistic and convincing as possible but without needing a degree in engineering to get there! While as I said I'm beginning to warm slightly to the idea of track building, I have to say I'm still rather confused when people start talking about 'back-to-back' measurements, and so on!

Matt

Matt, Welcome to the group, and don't worry, heated (but friendly!) debate is very much the order of the day here!

A few years ago, the biggest reason for using EM as opposed to OO was the improvement in appearance. EM layouts simply looked right, and OO, especially code 100 track based ones just looked too much like a train set by comparison. As Ian has mentioned, many locos were easy to convert to EM, and since much of your stock was going to be kit built anyway, it was just as easy to build them to the wider guage as it was to build them using 16.5mm.

Now, the story is different. A combination of SMP (or C&L) track and kit built points, and a much wider range of stock for most railways (I know we still whinge about our favourite loco's, but think about what it was like in 1990! No Bachmann and the Hornby/Triang Princess was the height of detail!) are now available with a much higher level of detail. You put one of todays locos next to one of the best kit built models of a few years ago and you would be hard put to tell them apart.

In short, OO is now a much stronger competitor to EM in terms of appearance, and wins when it comes to getting things running ASAP.

Hi Ian, Matt,

This is why I have been suggesting the 00-SF standard (or "EM minus 2") using 16.2mm gauge with 1mm flangeways. To general derision all round from those who haven't tried it.

You get the same running quality as EM, it looks much better than standard 00 because of the narrower flangeways and shorter crossing gaps, and virtually all modern RTR stock will run through perfectly and entirely unmodified.

In fact some running is better than EM, because not all wheels sold for EM meet the minimum wheel-width requirement for prototypical blunt-nose V-crossings (2.3mm width), whereas all RTR wheels do.

For curved track you gauge-widen back to 16.5mm and can use flexi-track as you prefer.

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

If you are reluctant to modify RTR locos but prepared to build your own track you can still achieve a very realistic and convincing model railway in OO. See here ...

Loco

Brilliant, thanks! I only replied to the OP as I was looking for the same answers.

I've seen your site & EM trackwork before, very impressive too, so I'll take the above mentioned book as a sound recommendation ... though it will be some time before I try building my own track as, along with DCC, it'll have to wait for the right amount of free time, space and money! :o/ In the meantime I can at least afford a book! :o)

While we're on the subject of trackwork ... is there any chance you could add some info. to your (EM trackwork) model rail pages, a 'how to' or 'step-by-step' on techniques/components used etc.? I'm sure alot of people would find it more useful and inspiring perhaps.

Loco

Hi Jerry,

Correct. But CAD usually means Computer Aided *Drawing*.

Templot is not a drawing tool. There is no function to draw a line on the screen and have it somehow become track. You can do that in all model railway CAD programs, and that's why Templot isn't one.

You can do all that in Templot, although there is a distinction in meaning between such printed sections or pages of the track plan, and individual "templates".

Whether you regard it as a primary or secondary function depends on where you are starting from. For a great many users, simply being able to print a single B-7 turnout curved onto 8 chains radius, or any other size of their choice, is the single most significant feature of Templot. Being able to incorporate it into a complete track plan and adjust the timbering to suit is a bonus.

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

"Martin Wynne" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

...

I shouldn't as you are all having so much fun but CAD really does usually mean Computer Aided Design ... or if you arein the police Computer Aided Dispatch but I suppose that's straying justa bit to OT.

Crawling back on topic my 2ps worth (FWIW) is that I'd appreciate some form of "demo" Templot, I look at it every six months or so and every six months or so I say to myself ... how much? I want to know I can use it before I spend that much money.

Hi Chris,

It didn't used to! Oh well, I suppose I shall have to start saying

TEMPLOT IS NOT CADrawing

I shall be demonstrating Templot at Scalefour North in Wakefield,

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

In message , Martin Wynne writes

Not interested in the argument lads but:-

Since when? Computer aided 'design' packages are universally known as CAD programmes.

The shareware market runs quite happily on time limited or encryption time limited packages that seem to serve the purpose of evaluation and purchase quite well. To time limit or countdown limit a program is trivial. Any half way competent programmer can do so.

However it's entirely up to the author and distributor to set the ground rules. The buyer quite rightly always has a choice, but so has the originator of the product.

There are generally free programmes that can quite often equal or better the offerings that are available at cost. Unfortunately in these cases no hand holding support is generally available and that is what must be considered in any situation where a niche product is made available. Personally I would never pay for software of any kind and all of my machines with the exception of a single [ancient 98] laptop run free software packages on a free [freeBSD] operating system. One only gets the products and services that one is prepared to pay for. Mind you half the cost of a new loco for a software package is no contest :0)

Nice free evaluation copy of Dreamweaver [£600 plus web design package] with the web mag in WH Smiths today. It will time expire, but not before one can build one hell of a web site :0)

Cheers.

Hi Roy,

I have in front of me now an old AutoCAD User Manual dated Sept. 19th 1985.

It begins "The AutoCAD drafting package is a

Computer Aided Drafting

application for your microcomputer."

The D might mean Design nowadays, but when CAD programs began it meant Drafting or Drawing. I was there and got the tee-shirt.

regards,

Martin.

---------------------------------- email : snipped-for-privacy@templot.com web :

"Martin Wynne" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Because that's a long way from Kent :-)

My models are H0 but Martin's 00-FS standard is a solution I know works well. I use my own H0 fine scale standard which is only 0.05mm different. I decided to stick with the NEM check gauge. You can use the track standard spread sheet to compare standards. See my web page for details.

Terry Flynn

DC control circuit diagrams

HO scale track and wheel standards

Any scale track standard and wheel spread sheet

Chris Wilson said the following on 23/01/2006 23:13:

Martin - do I see another use for your tutorial videos? :-)

Seriously, some of the videos you have produced could be used for demo purposes, or maybe you could think about creating a short series of demo videos. It's not as if you've got anything else to do

Something like "This is how Templot makes a basic turnout, and how to customise it" leading up to "This is a small section of Clapham Junction created in Templot". This way people can see Templot in action without compromising the security of the program.

Just a thought ;-)

Ian J. said the following on 23/01/2006 22:08:

No, *ALL* RTR steam locomotives will need re-gauging! I think you will usually find that valve gear (on recent stuff, anyway) is in the correct position, so conversion really isn't hard. As a rule, changing from OO to EM is very straightforward. If (when!) you join the EMGS, you get a huge file of manual sheets, detailing specific model conversions (amongst other info). They also sell various specialist bits and pieces where conversion is less straightforward, but I don't think there is any RTR that can't be converted. Even my Hornby-Dublo Stanier 8F was just a change of axle length and a few spacers to convert.

I think the opposite is actually true. The recent RTR stuff I have converted looks almost as if it was made for EM rather than OO. Drop in replacement wheelsets, and brake blocks line up with rims nicely. There is even some mild speculation that this is to aid the future possibility of RTR EM stock. It's just a shame I have dropped EM in favour of P4!

If anyone is seriously interested in modelling to EM gauge, then can I point you at the EM Gauge Society web page at

I go back before that to the late 1970's and CAD was definitely Design in those days.

This is probably another "where you started off is what you call it" discussions.

Rod