Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                            < back - search archive  browse archive images

Following a visit to an exhibition a couple of weeks ago I have decided to have a go at making some track in 7mm. As the first step I have purchased Templot which is why I am on here! I have made quite a lot of 4mm track (Flat bottom, soldered to PCB sleepers) but am looking to step up a gauge and get a better looking track. An exhibitor was making some 7mm track which looked really good (using a templot drawn template) To save myself a lot of time I thought I would get some advice on the best way to make a start. So here are my questions if anyone can help.

1. What gauge should I be using in templot if I want to run, say the new Heljan locos?

2. I want to have a go at glueing chairs to sleepers etc, I have found one supplier, C & L. Are they the only ones? are there better/ cheaper suppliers?

3. What are the best materials to use as sleepers, and where can they be obtained?

4. What is the best glue and where can it be obtained cheaply?

5. I am intending to use code 125 B.H. rail. Is this best?

6. I want to keep the cost down as much as possible and am happy making all the part myself (V's etc) what is the minimum interms of jigs, track gauges etc that I would need?

If there is any thing else that I have not thought of please feel free to add any comments.

Many thanks

Chris Blaxland

Hi Chris,

Here is my, (probably biased), answers to your questions:

1.  32mm or 31mm. The latter looks and runs better.  NB. The are other variants, but I suggest you ignore these and go for either of the above.
2.  Not better or cheaper. C+L are the accepted standard.
3.  ABS. Or you can move forward and use ply Timber Tracks.  All available from C+L.
4. Butanone. From C+L.
5.  Yes.
6.  I first exhibited a layout in 1968 and since that time have  made thousands of metres of track and countless turnouts.  All I ever use is 6 standard track gauges, available from C+L. You can forget all these 'error inducing' three point and other types of gauge. But be sure to equip yourself with a back to back gauge as well. (No point in having sound trackwork, if the wheels are out).

Can I suggest you go to C+L's web site - Chris Blaxland wrote:

Following a visit to an exhibition a couple of weeks ago I have decided to have a go at making some track in 7mm. As the first step I have purchased Templot which is why I am on here! I have made quite a lot of 4mm track (Flat bottom, soldered to PCB sleepers) but am looking to step up a gauge and get a better looking track. An exhibitor was making some 7mm track which looked really good (using a templot drawn template) To save myself a lot of time I thought I would get some advice on the best way to make a start. So here are my questions if anyone can help.

1. What gauge should I be using in templot if I want to run, say the new Heljan locos?

2. I want to have a go at glueing chairs to sleepers etc, I have found one supplier, C & L. Are they the only ones? are there better/ cheaper suppliers?

3. What are the best materials to use as sleepers, and where can they be obtained?

4. What is the best glue and where can it be obtained cheaply?

5. I am intending to use code 125 B.H. rail. Is this best?

6. I want to keep the cost down as much as possible and am happy making all the part myself (V's etc) what is the minimum interms of jigs, track gauges etc that I would need?

If there is any thing else that I have not thought of please feel free to add any comments.

Many thanks

Chris Blaxland

There is another manufacturer worth considering - Exactoscale.

Regards

Bill Campbell

Hi Chris,

Here is my, (probably biased), answers to your questions:

1.  32mm or 31mm. The latter looks and runs better.  NB. The are other variants, but I suggest you ignore these and go for either of the above.
2.  Not better or cheaper. C+L are the accepted standard.
3.  ABS. Or you can move forward and use ply Timber Tracks.  All available from C+L.
4. Butanone. From C+L.
5.  Yes.
6.  I first exhibited a layout in 1968 and since that time have  made thousands of metres of track and countless turnouts.  All I ever use is 6 standard track gauges, available from C+L. You can forget all these 'error inducing' three point and other types of gauge. But be sure to equip yourself with a back to back gauge as well. (No point in having sound trackwork, if the wheels are out).

Can I suggest you go to C+L's web site - Chris Blaxland wrote:

Following a visit to an exhibition a couple of weeks ago I have decided to have a go at making some track in 7mm. As the first step I have purchased Templot which is why I am on here! I have made quite a lot of 4mm track (Flat bottom, soldered to PCB sleepers) but am looking to step up a gauge and get a better looking track. An exhibitor was making some 7mm track which looked really good (using a templot drawn template) To save myself a lot of time I thought I would get some advice on the best way to make a start. So here are my questions if anyone can help.

1. What gauge should I be using in templot if I want to run, say the new Heljan locos?

2. I want to have a go at glueing chairs to sleepers etc, I have found one supplier, C & L. Are they the only ones? are there better/ cheaper suppliers?

3. What are the best materials to use as sleepers, and where can they be obtained?

4. What is the best glue and where can it be obtained cheaply?

5. I am intending to use code 125 B.H. rail. Is this best?

6. I want to keep the cost down as much as possible and am happy making all the part myself (V's etc) what is the minimum interms of jigs, track gauges etc that I would need?

If there is any thing else that I have not thought of please feel free to add any comments.

Many thanks

Chris Blaxland

wcampbell23 wrote:

There is another manufacturer worth considering - Exactoscale.

Regards

Bill Campbell

Exactoscale: http://www.exactoscale.co.uk/7mmtrack.html

Hi Brian,

many thanks for your quick reply. I have a couple of other questions if you are able to help out.

You say 31mm looks and works better, I presume that that is the scale listed as "O-XF" in the scale directory. And just to confirm, The O gauge ready to run stock will cope with this (I have tried to find the back to back measurments for the new Heljan loco's and can't, The Railway Modeller used to quote this information when they reviewed a product but seem to have stopped now.) What is the correct back to back for 31mm gauge track?

I have looked at the C and L website and they quote different types of chair. I am intending to model BR 1960's eastern region, what should I go for?

Also regarding chairs, are there special ones for holding the check rails and Vees etc or are they made up by cutting and glueing existing ones? (Do you know where there are examples of well made 0 gauge track that I could access on the web for reference purposes?)

When at the exhibition I noticed that a jig was used to put a small dog-leg in the stock rails to allow the point blades to fit snugly, is this standard procedure, or are there alternative methods?

Thanks again for your time

Chris Blaxland

Hi Chris,

Yes.  0-XF is 31mm.  All my O gauge stock copes with this admirably - none pof the 'lurch/drop' through the crossings.

Heljan?  I had one of the first production models and it ran perfectl;y on my trackwork. (It ran so weel in fact that someone who saw it made me an offer and bought it.  As I model 1936 GWR, it did not find into our scene, but it was a nice model).

Go for 3 bolt chairs.

We do not make special chairs, although others do.  Our experience is that cutting standard chairs gives a good representation.

Dog's legs , (joggled stock rails), are good in theory. Problem is, they are usually very much overscale and it shows.   Instead, use straight stock rails and switch blades which have been properly milled.  I mill for general sale as fine as I think the public will accept.  You will understand that you cannot mill nickel silver to an even sharp pointed end - you get to a time where the rotary action of the end mill makes the end ragged and uneven - we call it 'milling to rags'. This is how I mill blades I use myself and also for Norman Soloman. We then dress them so that they are down to a real feather.  That is how they should be, but if I sold them like that I would have folk returning them every day..... So there is always a little 'meat' on the end of the blade that you can remove with care.

I hope this helps.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Thanks again Brian,

I take it that you are involved with C and L?

I will be putting in an order shortly, how long does delivery take?

Regarding swicth blades, I have always filed my own from plain rail before and will give that a try first (For economy!) but will bear in my that milled versions are available.

One final question; when making 00 scale track I have always spaced the sleepers out more than is prototypical because I feel the appearance is superior. The exhibitor I saw at the exhibition also was not using the templot sleeper spacing but was allowing a slightly bigger gap between sleepers, is this common practise?

You say 31mm looks and works better, I presume that that is the scale listed as "O-XF" in the scale directory. And just to confirm, The O gauge ready to run stock will cope with this (I have tried to find the back to back measurements for the new Heljan loco's and can't, The Railway Modeller used to quote this information when they reviewed a product but seem to have stopped now.) What is the correct back to back for 31mm gauge track?

Hi Chris,

The advice from the Gauge 0 Guild is that 31.0mm (0-XF) is deprecated in favour of 31.2mm (0-SF).

One final question; when making 00 scale track I have always spaced the sleepers out more than is prototypical because I feel the appearance is superior. The exhibitor I saw at the exhibition also was not using the templot sleeper spacing but was allowing a slightly bigger gap between sleepers, is this common practise?

Chris Blaxland wrote:

One final question; when making 00 scale track I have always spaced the sleepers out more than is prototypical because I feel the appearance is superior. The exhibitor I saw at the exhibition also was not using the templot sleeper spacing but was allowing a slightly bigger gap between sleepers, is this common practise?

The default sleeper spacing in Templot is just that a default spacing. The correct spacing depends on prototype and date. This however is easy to achieve in Templot.

Chris Blaxland wrote:

You say 31mm looks and works better, I presume that that is the scale listed as "O-XF" in the scale directory. And just to confirm, The O gauge ready to run stock will cope with this (I have tried to find the back to back measurements for the new Heljan loco's and can't, The Railway Modeller used to quote this information when they reviewed a product but seem to have stopped now.) What is the correct back to back for 31mm gauge track?

Hi Chris,

The advice from the Gauge 0 Guild is that 31.0mm (0-XF) is deprecated in favour of 31.2mm (0-SF).

However, several users have adopted 31.5mm (0-MF) as the best all-round compromise to give good running with a wide range of existing wheels. See for example this layout:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/blog/253/entry-1422-heyside-trackwork/

The narrower gauges do tend to restrict you to Slater's pattern wheel profile only.

For all of these track gauges the BEF dimension is the same - 30.0mm max. This means that if the effective flange thickness is 0.7mm, the maximum back-to-back is 29.3mm.

For other flange thicknesses, adjust the maximum back-to-back accordingly.

For 0-MF, the minimum back-to-back is 28.6mm.

regards,

Martin.

The problem with 0-XF is that there is very little play available, even if your track-building is to the highest standard

The problem with 0-XF is that there is very little play available, even if your track-building is to the highest standard, you will still have a problem if your radii are too small, in which case you need to widen the gauge up to 32mm depending on the curve! Standard 0-F apart from not looking that good also gives less than perfect running, especially on larger radius turnouts.

All of this has of course been discussed at length before, have a look at Jim Snowden's article(s) in MRJ (forget which one without looking it up - there is at least one index for MRJ on Scalefour's website) for a good introduction.

A significant problem with 0-XF is that the dimensions don't add up, if it is intended as advertised for all existing G0G-Fine wheels. The quoted track gauge of 31.0mm min with a 1.2mm flangeway gives a check gauge CG of only 29.8mm. This is less than the wheel BEF of 30.0mm max, breaking the basic rule for all trackwork that BEF must not be greater than CG.

In order to run properly on 0-XF, wheels must comply to a smaller BEF of 29.8mm max. This means that for 29.2mm max back-to-back, the maximum flange thickness is only 0.6mm. That's a typical flange thickness for fine-scale wheels in 4mm scale, not 7mm, and there are no such 7mm  wheels available.

For this reason, the suggested minimum track gauge for G0G-Fine wheels is 31.2mm min with 1.2mm flangeway (0-SF). This correctly sets the CG at 30.0mm min, matching the BEF of 30.0mm max.

Some users have created a 0-XF variant using 1.0mm flangeways to restore the correct CG. This works ok if the back-to-back is tightly controlled to 29.2mm exactly with a flange thickness of 0.8mm max, limiting the range of wheels which can be used. In effect it is a reduced-gauge version of S7, which many would regard as a better choice.

The best advice seems to be to ignore both 0-XF and 0-SF and choose between 0-MF and S7.

0-MF (31.5mm gauge, 1.5mm flangeway) accepts all existing G0F-Fine wheels easily and gives much improved running over the original G0G-F 32.0mm standard.

S7 is the exact-scale option with its own wheels for those who want that instead.  

regards,

Martin.

I ran 0-XF for 10 years without problems and rest my case upon that fact.

Brian Lewis wrote:

I ran 0-XF for 10 years without problems and rest my case upon that fact.

Hi Brian,

There's no argument about that. But with what wheels? Set to what B-B? Would the layout have accepted any existing wheels complying to the G0G-Fine standard?

If not, what is the advantage of 0-XF over S7?

regards,

Martin.

When theory meets actual working practice, something has to give and this debate is becoming rather like that of the scientists who proved positively that bees could not fly. :-)