Martin,
I know that we all say that Templot is not a CAD style of program, but underneath the hood it is basically the same, with a database of all the elements of a design or drawing, this database storing thew vectors and properties of each element of a drawing. The major difference in use is how this database is accessed. In a CAD program, if you want to select an item to modify it, you usually click on it to highlight it, then alter it to suit your needs, then deselect it and the changes are automatically stored on the internal database. The images on the screen are a window to the items in the database.
In Templot, you have to get your hands dirty to a certain extent and manipulate the use of the database. You select an element on the screen image - called the background - then you have to make a decision about what you want to do with it. You can delete it to the control which means removing the data for the element to the control area to make adjustments with the image of the element being highlighted - similar to clicking on an element on a CAD screen. When you have finished any adjustments you have to store the data for the element back into the database and the image reverts to the background colouring of the elements. If you don't store this information and move on to work with another element, then you have lost that information. In a CAD program, the storing is done for you automatically and I suspect this is one area that new users may find a problem - i.e. they've done work on an item then it's disappeared - really disappeared.
.
If you copy the element from the store to the control, work on it, then store it back at the completion of the actions, then you have two versions of the item in the database - the original one before the modifications and the modified version. So new users can finish up with a lot of versions of elements in the database because they were playing it too safe - maybe after losing information using when deleting an element to the control area, and you might have to carefully pick through all the duplicates in the storage box to make sure you delete the ones that are not required.
The third action on the store of elements is to wipe from the store. This action copies the element data into the control, but the display feature of the background screen is switched off - i.e. the data is still stored in the database but not shown on screen which allows elements to be stored for later use, but not shown on screen. In a CAD program you might do the same by switching an element to another layer then switching the layer off
So I think a lot of new users are probably mystified by all these actions in Templot when they have been used to the click/select to work on an item and deselect to save an element which is common on probably every graphical or CAD program these days. And the semantics is probably confusing as well - I always think twice before selecting a menu item with the word "Delete" in it, and "Delete to Control" is probably one of the most used actions in Templot. In "Windows Speak", the wording would be "Move to Control" and I think new users would understand that better.
However Templot does give you a huge amount of control over what's in its Storage Box (database) and I can assume that the particular method of handling of database elements in Templot would dictate a different method of access and storage.
But for actual track design there is nothing better - well not at the hobby level.
For example, you want to model a block post on a double track main line - a sweeping reverse curve double track with a trailing crossover. It takes you a short wile to lay out the one track with your curves. Then once that is done, copy the track to make a double track at the appropriate track centres (a second or two), insert a turnout in one track, set switch and crossing angle and position it (a minute or less), make a crossover from this turnout to match the other track perfectly (a second or two), then tidy up the other track around the turnout (under a minute). Job done.
I would suggest that would beat the pencil and lath method by quite a margin.
Jim.