Template accuracy EM gauge

[sharris]

Are C&L EM gauge templates actually P4 templates shrunk a bit?

 

Measuring templates for a 60' track panel

 

Printed from Templot: 240mm (well done Martin!)

EMGS template: 238mm

C&L Template: 230.5mm

 

230.5/240 = 0.960

18.2/18.83 = 0.967

 

Is it Coincidence that the ratios are so close?

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

25 minutes ago, sharris said:

Are C&L EM gauge templates actually P4 templates shrunk a bit?

 

Yes. Also the 00 templates.

 

The claimed argument for this is that it keeps the timber sizes and spacings in proportion to the gauge. What that actually means of course is that the templates are no longer 4mm/ft scale. In the case of the 00 templates they are UK-pattern track in H0 scale.

 

Templot keeps the scale at 4mm/ft and changes the gauge only.

 

This argument has been running for years.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

What I noticed with Timber Tracks is that their frets are EM/P4, that's fine for turnouts but with crossings they should be different lengths

 

I would always go with Templot providing the printer has been calibrated, as for the others it may be the printing process which has shrunk the plans over time

[t-b-g]

I have been working in EM using P4 templates slightly shrunk down for many years. It works fine and looks great.

 

You just need to adjust check rails and bends in wing rails to correct the different gaps.

 

It isn't a big deal one way or the other.  I have seen layouts built to EM with proper scale sleepers and others done with the proportions reduced. In practice, it is almost impossible to tell one from the other.

 

Neither is "right" and nobody can say that one is more "wrong" than the other.

 

If anybody can accurately judge that a sleeper is 96% of correct size unless you have a full length one next to it or a ruler on it, they are much better than I will ever be.