RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted February 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 1, 2014 Can anybody post photos of these two makes of ready-made track please? I have made a couple of hand-built turnouts using 1.2 mm copper-clad sleepers and want flexi track to match. I wondered if there was much difference between the two makes? C&L go to some lengths on their website to show and tell the reader of their product but there's nothing on the Marcway site save the price, which is a little cheaper than C&L. I know C&L's sleepers are only 0.8 mm thick, so would need a little packing to fit hand-built turnouts. How thick are SMP sleepers for instance? Sorry if this has been covered before but I couldn't find a similar topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I have just measured the height of C&L track, to rail top is 3.4 mm, rail height 2.14 mm. The sleeper height is 0.84 mm but the chair on the sleeper adds about 0.4mm so they should match in height Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_H Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 How thick are SMP sleepers for instance?. I have just measured the height of C&L track, to rail top is 3.4 mm, rail height 2.14 mm. The sleeper height is 0.84 mm but the chair on the sleeper adds about 0.4mm so they should match in height Hi John, Not too sure that you answered the question Are you able to advice on the height of the SMP track/sleeper?? I'd also be very interested to know. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 SMP height is 3.18mm. The sleeper thickness is 0.83mm. I use SMP with all my copper clad pointwork with 1.06mm sleepers from C & L and the height matches well. See my layout thread for pics (Link in my signature). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Hi John, Not too sure that you answered the question Are you able to advice on the height of the SMP track/sleeper?? I'd also be very interested to know. Ian Ian Sorry if I confused you but was just trying to inform you that the C&L track does not need packing to match the height of your turnouts. I have only got old SMP (40 + years) track, so it may have changed by now. I use C&L products as I prefer their copperclad strip, as it is cut by a router giving a uniform width and has a square cut, the last lot of copperclad strip I got from Marcway was very variable in width. Also I find C&L is available at the shows I go to. Scaleway was OK when I bought it and as Gordon has said, he uses it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted February 2, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2014 Thanks for the info regarding the overall height of the two tracks it seems as if both will do the job. What I really wanted was what do they look like compared with one another? Do they both look the same or is one slightly better in appearance than the other? C&L say that the sleeper length and spacing is done so that the track does not look "narrow gauge", does SMP do the same? C&L might also say that their NS is high in nickel content so looks like steel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lee Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Not my picture, so I shouldn't post directly to it. If you scroll about 2/3 of the way down there is a picture from Hayfield. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21024 I have SMP flexitrack on my layout, and am happy with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 This is SMP track... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted February 2, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2014 Thanks Gordon, has anybody got a shot of C&L flexi, please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2014 Some C&L - unballasted (and no comments about the radius, it's an industrial line ). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted February 2, 2014 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2014 So, all in all, not a lot of difference, Thanks to those who posted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 3, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2014 So, all in all, not a lot of difference, Thanks to those who posted. Exactly so Jonathan - the main reason I have used some C&L recently was because my 'local' retailer now sells it instead of SMP and I thought I would give it a try to see what it's like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWales Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Have used both in EM on exhibition layouts C&L looks better but you may need to rewheel some items whilst SMP can accept a wider range of wheel profiles Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardswain Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 This is SMP track... DSCF5405.jpg Gordon, you are a master of track construction! Like many, many others, I have watched Eastwood Town via the thread from afar and have been deeply impressed by your abilities (and dismayed by the times you have chucked the whole thing away and started again!). Partly because of you I've sold my collection of Peco track and ordered some C+L components, but plan on using SMP flex. How do you join your track together? With Peco there are rail joiners, and I know SMP sells a similar item for bullhead rail. But is there a better solution? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardswain Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I've just ordered a whole load of bits from C+L, amongst them loads of plastic chairs and sleepers in 1.6mm thickness for building turnouts. I'm planning on using SMP flexi between the turnouts. Have I ordered the correct thickness of sleepers, or should I have ordered 0.8mm? So much to worry about!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Richard In my opinion you have chosen the correct thickness sleepers for turnout and crossing construction, as the thinner sleepers tend to curl upwards over time due to the solvent drying out and shrinking. SMP flexi track has thinner sleepers (as does C&L flexi track) the simple solution is to have card packing underneath. If you have not bought the track yet consider the Exactoscale fast-track bases, these are 1.6 mm thick and match what you have bought. You will have to buy and thread the rail yourself (quite easy) but I feel its a much better product An alternative is the Exactoscale plastic fishplates http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_347_349&product_id=4184 These are quite fragile, but sturdy enough to hold all together whilst the glue is setting. They really do look the business Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Freeman Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Richard In my opinion you have chosen the correct thickness sleepers for turnout and crossing construction, as the thinner sleepers tend to curl upwards over time due to the solvent drying out and shrinking. SMP flexi track has thinner sleepers (as does C&L flexi track) the simple solution is to have card packing underneath. If you have not bought the track yet consider the Exactoscale fast-track bases, these are 1.6 mm thick and match what you have bought. You will have to buy and thread the rail yourself (quite easy) but I feel its a much better product An alternative is the Exactoscale plastic fishplates http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_347_349&product_id=4184 These are quite fragile, but sturdy enough to hold all together whilst the glue is setting. They really do look the business One main difference not mentioned is that with SMP track you have to cut the web to flex with C&L you don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I've been comparing SMP and C&L EM Gauge flexitrack. To my surprise, they're noticeably different. SMP sleeper average width is about 0.338mm whilst C&L average width is about 0.343. (Scale is 0.333 wide). SMP sleeper average spacing is about 0.897mm apart, whilst C&L average spacing is about 1.03mm. (Scale intermediate sleeper spacing is about 0.97mm). Sleeper lengths are identical. These differences may be small, but the track appearance is noticeably different. Curiously, I think the SMP track looks better, but decided to use C&L for both flexible track and point components because it seems to be more accurate and is likely to give a more complementary appearance between points & track. Perhaps in 00 gauge SMP & C&L are identical, I don't know. Perhaps someone would correct me if I've made an error here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 SMP Scaleway is now owned by Marcway and is older than C&L C&L is by C&L they also supply Exactoscale fast track bases C&L sleepers are 3.39 mm wide (give or take the odd thou),standard 8' 6" lengths. About correct sleeper spacing, will depend on era/region, certainly looks much better than 00/H0 from RTR suppliers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 One key issue is that C+L flexible has a reputation for catching the flanges on some modern RTR. The problem is with the tip of the flange striking the chair moulding. The chairs on SMP are less prominent, so this does not happen The problem with C+L chair strike is intermittent and has been suggested it may relate to wear or damage to one out of several moulds for the track base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Perhaps someone would correct me if I've made an error here. Some confusion with your measurements, your mm should be cm, or you need to move the decimal points one step to the right. Regards Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 One key issue is that C+L flexible has a reputation for catching the flanges on some modern RTR. The problem is with the tip of the flange striking the chair moulding. The chairs on SMP are less prominent, so this does not happen The problem with C+L chair strike is intermittent and has been suggested it may relate to wear or damage to one out of several moulds for the track base. From what I understand is that the chairs are scale size and some of the earlier better quality RTR wheels bumped along the tops of the chairs, nothing to do with the moulding process, NEM standard and those wheels with the finescale label are OK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I just measured a piece of SMP and the clearance from the rail head to the top of the chairs is 0.8 mm which is quite a bit less than the typical flange depth. However, the chairs do not project very far from the inside of the rails so the face of the flange does not contact the side of the chairs even though the flange is lower than the top of the chairs.. I don't have any C&L for comparison, but it may be that the issue was more to do with chair width (across the gauge) rather than the height. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.