Why remove the template?

[Dungrange]

In his book "An approach to building finescale track in 4mm", Iain Rice refers to building point work in situ and states "simply ballasting over the templates seems to be frowned upon in 'proper' circles, although I can't see why."  His logic seems to be that removing point work from the templates risks damage, which can be avoided by leaving the turnout glued to the template and the template glued to the track bed, with everything covered in ballast.  I have to agree that I see merit in this approach and am therefore wondering why there seems to be a general concensus that the template should be removed before laying?

 

Is there a good reason why it is better to remove a template before laying a newly constructed turnout?

 

[Kelly]

In his book "An approach to building finescale track in 4mm", Iain Rice refers to building point work in situ and states "simply ballasting over the templates seems to be frowned upon in 'proper' circles, although I can't see why."  His logic seems to be that removing point work from the templates risks damage, which can be avoided by leaving the turnout glued to the template and the template glued to the track bed, with everything covered in ballast.  I have to agree that I see merit in this approach and am therefore wondering why there seems to be a general concensus that the template should be removed before laying?

 

Is there a good reason why it is better to remove a template before laying a newly constructed turnout?

I too have been reading this book recently. I wondered like you why about the template as well.

 

I also wondered if others had experimented with his track 'disconnect' ideas he features (8mm foam, with track not glued to it so it can be easier recovered)

[Dungrange]

I also wondered if others had experimented with his track 'disconnect' ideas he features (8mm foam, with track not glued to it so it can be easier recovered)

 

I have found that a lot of the material in Iain's book seem to make sense to me, so I am planning to adopt the use of foam both on top of the track-bed and also between the track-bed and the baseboard framing.  However, I'll probably just glue the template / turnouts to the foam.  Whether or not I'm happy with this, only time will tell.

[sp1]

I too have been reading this book recently. I wondered like you why about the template as well.

 

I also wondered if others had experimented with his track 'disconnect' ideas he features (8mm foam, with track not glued to it so it can be easier recovered)

My reading of it is not that the track can be easily recovered but that it 'floats' giving some degree of movement supposedly to aid running and to reduce noise. Has anyone ever tried it?

[Kelly]

I have found that a lot of the material in Iain's book seem to make sense to me, so I am planning to adopt the use of foam both on top of the track-bed and also between the track-bed and the baseboard framing.  However, I'll probably just glue the template / turnouts to the foam.  Whether or not I'm happy with this, only time will tell.

 

It makes sense to me also. My boards are already assembled laser-cut ply, so adopting the foam idea fully as he describes won't be possible for my uses. However a foam trackbed, with the turnouts left on paper and the paper glued to the foam is something I might give a try.

 

He notes that glueing the turnouts directly to the foam would make removing them later nigh on impossible.

 

My reading of it is not that the track can be easily recovered but that it 'floats' giving some degree of movement supposedly to aid running and to reduce noise. Has anyone ever tried it?

It is to do with harmonics, and the foam absorbs some of that, and the track not being heavily fixed in place to the foam or baseboard makes for supposedly lower noise and less harmonics (which he attributes to some derailments, but I'm not sure on that)

[Derekstuart]

I am puzzled how track that is insecure and moves can aid running.

 

I wonder if I can make a suggestion. I had many such questions as this as things moved on in the 20 years since I last built anything. So I built dozens of small test modules, perhaps only 2ft by 9 inches wide and I tried different bases, ballasts, paints, glues, rail, timbers and so on.

 

I would really be very wary about 'floating' track if you are using anything other than code 100 as mis-aligned track (don't forget that the foam will contract over time) is going to cause derailments.

 

Just my opinion if it's any help.

[Kelly]

I am puzzled how track that is insecure and moves can aid running.

 

I wonder if I can make a suggestion. I had many such questions as this as things moved on in the 20 years since I last built anything. So I built dozens of small test modules, perhaps only 2ft by 9 inches wide and I tried different bases, ballasts, paints, glues, rail, timbers and so on.

 

I would really be very wary about 'floating' track if you are using anything other than code 100 as mis-aligned track (don't forget that the foam will contract over time) is going to cause derailments.

 

Just my opinion if it's any help.

He goes into a fair amount of detail in his book about it. The theory is that the real railway the track isn't fixed like it is traditionally on layouts and absorbs the weight of the locos. Or something like that.

 

I've yet to experiment to see if it does work myself, so hence wondering if anyone else had taken a leaf so to speak from his book and tried it. I've my own doubts about it, but also don't think cork + track is the right way to go either due to the extra noise it makes.

[Dungrange]

I am puzzled how track that is insecure and moves can aid running.

 

I would really be very wary about 'floating' track if you are using anything other than code 100 as mis-aligned track (don't forget that the foam will contract over time) is going to cause derailments.

 

Derek,

 

I think the theory is that real track moves within the ballast as a train passes over and therefore Iain is trying to allow similar movement (primarily in the vertical plane) as a way of absorbing the vibrations caused by the electric motor and to stop this being transmitted to the more massive baseboard structure where such vibration / noise is amplified.  However, like you, I fail to see how track that is not secure at the baseboard edges can provide flawless running across baseboard joins.  As such, I'm still of the opinion that I will solder the rail to screws that firmly connect the rail to the track-bed, even if this creates a 'hard' spot for noise transmission.

 

It's interesting that you highlight that the foam will contract over time (which I wasn't aware of).  Might this be a reason for using double sided sticky tape to stick the template to the foam?  Presumably this would mean that any shrinkage of the foam underlay is less likely to impact on the permanent way if it is strengthened by retaining the template - ie the join between the foam and template is presumably weaker than the join between the template and the timbers.

[Derekstuart]

I suppose it depends upon what you are trying to do with it. If you are running Peco code 100 then a small to medium sized earthquake is probably not going to matter much to the track; I'm not so sure that will hold true for any of the finer track, including code 75 00 which will be more susceptible to movement- as for EM and P4, I'd say forget it.

 

I am not an engineer, but there are people who will go to the nth degree about scaling masses and what not and how something might LOOK like a 1/76th of the real thing but that it behaves somewhat differently. I have seem foam compressing by perhaps 40 thou when a heavy loco passes over it- that would scale up to 3 inches on the prototype, which is not right.

 

Martin Wynne recently wrote some very good comments about the behaviour of models Vs the prototype. I can't recall which forum it was on, but it might be worth asking on the Templot club forum.

 

EDIT: Try looking at this http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=96&t=5030&start=50

 

There's a post by Martin about 1/4 of the way down. It might not seem directly relevant to the question here, but if you read the follow up comments you will, I think, understand the similarity between the issue here and there.

 

Either way if you go for it, please will you post your results? I have a feeling that you won't find out straight away whether the soft underlay will work, but best wishes with it.

[gismorail]

Being a big 'Rice' fan if he says is ok it'll do for me 

[hayfield]

In his book "An approach to building finescale track in 4mm", Iain Rice refers to building point work in situ and states "simply ballasting over the templates seems to be frowned upon in 'proper' circles, although I can't see why."  His logic seems to be that removing point work from the templates risks damage, which can be avoided by leaving the turnout glued to the template and the template glued to the track bed, with everything covered in ballast.  I have to agree that I see merit in this approach and am therefore wondering why there seems to be a general concensus that the template should be removed before laying?

 

Is there a good reason why it is better to remove a template before laying a newly constructed turnout?

 

 

David

 

Building in situ unless you have a large workspace and can not only move around the base board but also work on it at a convenient height in good light is rarely desirable. where as sitting at a workbench and using a building board makes life so much easier

 

If you do leave work on a paper template you have the added problem of ensuring the paper template sticks to the baseboard/track bed and also the turnout

 

As one who prefers to use closed cell foam, I rather remove the paper template and stick the turnout directly to the foam. In the end though use the method that you are most comfortable using, as when done well both methods work equally as well.

[Junctionmad]

I print out the build templates on good quality heavier paper stock, I leave the paper template permanently on , it's nicely retains slide chaired sleepers etc.

 

Dave

[martin_wynne]

Is there a good reason why it is better to remove a template before laying a newly constructed turnout?

 

Hi David,

 

Traditionally you obtained a ready-printed template, usually on thin paper, and attached the timbers with ordinary double-sided sticky tape. That doesn't provide a very firm bond, and such tapes if ordinary cellulose-based tape tend to break down and crumble to dust over the years. Simply sticking the template to the baseboard doesn't therefore provide a very robust or long-lasting construction. Track in situ is subject to some quite strong forces as the rails expand and contract with temperature, and the baseboards expand and contract with humidity.

 

But nowadays we can print our own templates on much thicker paper, 160gsm recommended, and stick the timbering to them with much stronger adhesives. So it is perfectly feasible to leave the two attached and stick the whole thing down on the baseboard. This avoids any possibility of damage or distortion when removing the template.

 

It does mean ballasting afterwards, which is a chore many modellers try to avoid by sticking down track into a layer of adhesive and pouring ballast over at the same time. I would always prefer ballasting afterwards -- that way you can get the railway fully tested, wired up and working first. Ballasting can then take place in a more orderly and prototypical fashion, using a less aggressive adhesive. If the template is spiked through into the cork underlay between the timbers, the ballast adhesive will tend to penetrate through to help strengthen the paper.

 

It is always preferable to build track on the bench rather than in situ. That way you have comfortable working conditions in good light. You can turn it end-for-end to get at both sides, and lift it to eye along the rail alignments.

 

My preference now would be to build even more on the bench -- a sub-base of 4mm plywood, a layer of cork, then template and track. It could even be ballasted on the bench, in good light. The sub-base can be profiled to create a proper cess alongside the track, rather than just a low ballast shoulder from chamfered cork. The sub-bases can then be screwed down on the baseboard, and if slightly oversize screw holes are used with pan-head screws, there is an opportunity to fine-tune the alignments at any time. Or even remove the track back to the bench for repairs or adjustment. The screw heads are easily covered with a bit of ballast.

 

 

 

 

This cess on a GWR branch line is deeper than 10" (1/8" chamfered cork):

 

 

 

Martin. 

[Izzy]

 

My preference now would be to build even more on the bench -- a sub-base of 4mm plywood, a layer of cork, then template and track. It could even be ballasted on the bench, in good light. The sub-base can be profiled to create a proper cess alongside the track, rather than just a low ballast shoulder from chamfered cork. The sub-bases can then be screwed down on the baseboard, and if slightly oversize screw holes are used with pan-head screws, there is an opportunity to fine-tune the alignments at any time. Or even remove the track back to the bench for repairs or adjustment. The screw heads are easily covered with a bit of ballast.

 

I think the late Peter Denny use to build his track this basic way IIRC. Using tacks/pins driven into the base through the ply sleepers to solder the rail to, and then ballasting before laying on the actual baseboard. A bit like making ready ballasted set-track really, and well suited to the limited parts available when he first adopted it.  It does seem an ideal way of easily building track in comfort on the workbench whatever the construction used, which can be subsequently recovered and re-used when/if the layout is revised/changed.

 

Izzy

[Paul Cram]

The track on our layout Hawes was built in situ withb the templates glued down and the timbers glued to the template. No pronlem in over 20 years.

[dasatcopthorne]

I haven't used the foam bit but I have built track extensively on Templot templates then stuck the templates/track to the track underlay.

 

No problems found yet after 4/5 years. I wonder if it's because it's all 00-SF 16.2mm.  :-))))

 

Dave

[John_Miles]

I did an experiment some years ago with my friends (yes I do have some). We built various samples of track on plywood (from memory it was 9mm). Some had cork as underlay, some foam and some nothing and we came to the conclusion that cork, foam etc was  waste of time, especially when you add scenery with its sound damping. Also, I always build track in-situ. Much easier than building it and then moving it.

[Dungrange]

Okay, if I understand all of the replies correctly, the risk with leaving the template in place is that there are then two bonds (baseboard to template and template to track).  Historically when adhesives were perhaps not as strong as those currently available, removing the template and bonding the track directly to the baseboard, reduced the risk of the track lifting (by halving the number of bonds).  However, newer and stronger adhesives effectively make this less necessary than was once the case, but perhaps 'old habits die hard'.  Many modellers will continue to do things the way they have always done or the way they see someone else do it.  However, it would seem that it is more than Iain Rice that buries templates and those who have don't seem to have had any problems.  I'd say that's good enough for me to follow likewise.

 

I print out the build templates on good quality heavier paper stock, I leave the paper template permanently on , it's nicely retains slide chaired sleepers etc.

 

So it is perfectly feasible to leave the two attached and stick the whole thing down on the baseboard. This avoids any possibility of damage or distortion when removing the template.

 

These two statements basically sum up my reluctance to remove the template if there is not a good reason for doing so.  I'm more concerned that I damage or distort the crossover when trying to remove the template, or the timbers with slide chairs all drop off.  In fact, that concerns me more than the thought that the glue that holds it all down isn't strong enough.  That therefore points to retaining the template as part of the formation.

[Paul Cram]

If you don't carefully pre curve the curved rails there is a tendency for them to try to straighten when removed from the template which then requires repositioning when re laying.

[Dungrange]

I suppose it depends upon what you are trying to do with it. If you are running Peco code 100 then a small to medium sized earthquake is probably not going to matter much to the track; I'm not so sure that will hold true for any of the finer track, including code 75 00 which will be more susceptible to movement- as for EM and P4, I'd say forget it.

 

I am not an engineer, but there are people who will go to the nth degree about scaling masses and what not and how something might LOOK like a 1/76th of the real thing but that it behaves somewhat differently. I have seem foam compressing by perhaps 40 thou when a heavy loco passes over it- that would scale up to 3 inches on the prototype, which is not right.

 

Martin Wynne recently wrote some very good comments about the behaviour of models Vs the prototype. I can't recall which forum it was on, but it might be worth asking on the Templot club forum.

 

EDIT: Try looking at this http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=96&t=5030&start=50

 

There's a post by Martin about 1/4 of the way down. It might not seem directly relevant to the question here, but if you read the follow up comments you will, I think, understand the similarity between the issue here and there.

 

Either way if you go for it, please will you post your results? I have a feeling that you won't find out straight away whether the soft underlay will work, but best wishes with it.

 

Derek,

 

The approach that Iain Rice recommends isn't actually based on trying to scale the behaviour of the prototype as per the article that you linked to, but is based on harmonics.  Basically, a small model locomotive with an electric motor will vibrate as the motor rotates.  It will also tend to cause the locomotive to 'bounce' along the track.  If the track is glued directly to the baseboard, then the vibrations from the model are transmitted directly through the track to the baseboard, but because the baseboard is much more massive than the model locomotive and is effectively a hollow wooden box (like the body of a guitar or a loudspeaker cabinet) these vibrations are amplified and this is a source of noise.  However, this path of noise transmission can be interrupted by separating the track from the baseboard with softer layers that absorb some of the vibrations.

 

The rational for using cork or foam underlay is that it provides some of the damping of the vibrations that are the source of noise.  Many modellers claim that they lay their track on a sheet of cork to reduce noise, but they then ballast the track with a mixture of PVA and granite chippings that form a solid mass and therefore whilst the cork on its own would provide some damping, once the pores are full of solid PVA any noise reducing capabilities have been lost.  It is therefore important to maintain a flexible bond to preserve the noise reducing qualities of cork or foam, which is why latex based glues are considered better.  Where Iain takes this approach further is to also separate the track bed from the baseboard, with additional foam packing between the frame and the track bed.  This therefore means that you have the track, a layer of foam underlay (which provides some damping), the plywood track bed, additional closed cell foam (which provides further damping) and then the baseboard frame.

 

However, whilst all of this seems to make sense, I don't think Iain discusses cross baseboard joints or certainly not in much detail and like you I have some concerns in this area insofar as there is quite a lot of foam that can compress. Given that Iain models in P4, I assume that this must work for this track gauge (He certainly doesn't use Peco Code 100 Streamline track), but I feel that there is a need to connect the track bed on one baseboard to the track bed on the next baseboard as well as bolting the substructures together.  However, I haven't got this far yet, so I can't confirm what I will end up doing. However, I'm tempted to use very small dowels between the track beds as well as 1" pattern makers dowels between the baseboards, although that depends on the thickness of the track bed. 

[Dungrange]

If you don't carefully pre curve the curved rails there is a tendency for them to try to straighten when removed from the template which then requires repositioning when re laying.

 

I guess that is another reason to leave the template in place, albeit leaving the template in place shouldn't be to avoid pre-curving the rails.

[Derekstuart]

David

 

Like I said before, I hope you will update us when you have done whatever it is you ultimately choose.

 

As for the scaling mass part- what I was referring to was your comment about how the real railway deforms under load but doesn't move out of true (actually it does over time hence the need for tamping etc). But the mass of the ballast holding the real track in place and in the exact location chosen might not work in model form. Certainly if one uses copydex as opposed to PVA for the very reasons you outline.

 

Ask 5 people and get 10 different solutions- and they call this a dull hobby.

[Dungrange]

My preference now would be to build even more on the bench -- a sub-base of 4mm plywood, a layer of cork, then template and track. It could even be ballasted on the bench, in good light. The sub-base can be profiled to create a proper cess alongside the track, rather than just a low ballast shoulder from chamfered cork. The sub-bases can then be screwed down on the baseboard, and if slightly oversize screw holes are used with pan-head screws, there is an opportunity to fine-tune the alignments at any time. Or even remove the track back to the bench for repairs or adjustment. The screw heads are easily covered with a bit of ballast.

 

 

 

 

Martin,

 

I'm not averse to the approach that you highlight, since what you are moving about between the workbench and the layout would become a much more robust piece of track work.  I assume, with reference to the diagram you posted above that the cork represents the ballast (orange), while the 4 mm ply represents the formation (light green).  You will then have another, thicker layer of ply under that on which the landscape including the cess is built.  Can I clarify two points?  Firstly is the 4 mm ply determined from the average depth of the cess (ie 12" deep), or is this the minimum thickness of plywood that can be sufficiently rigid to provide a robust formation? Secondly, what thickness of plywood would you screw this track formation onto?

 

One advantage that I can see from this approach is that it would allow the functional stretcher bar to be hidden under the underlay / ballast without actually being under the baseboard.  That is, it could move within a slot cut in the 4 mm ply and then there would only be a need to drill a single hole through the track bed to interface with the functional stretcher bar.  That means that I only need cosmetic stretcher bars above baseboard level. 

[Junctionmad]

My own view is that cork underlay adds little or nothing to sound deadening , especially when ballasted I think many people just use it out of habit rather then any science. Certainly in P4 the trend is towards directly laying it to the baseboard.

 

Whether secondary sound absorption using " sprung " track beds. Is something I have no comment on , it seems to hold some advantage but I wonder about the issues of ensuring mechanical consistency across boards.

 

Dave

[Derekstuart]

Dave, one other point is that I think P4 modellers tend to run much slower speeds- with some notable exceptions P4 does not lend itself well to sections of high speed line. The slower speed possibly has a bearing on level of noise.