Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 3380EM Gauge options
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 29 Jan 2019 01:35

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Hope you are well. Would you take a minute or two to briefly explain the background to the EM-SF and EM4 options in the Templot gauge list. There was some correspondence in Model Railway Journal recently ago but the few recent MRJ's I have aren't the right ones for me to refer to. I have plans for some small cameo layouts that may be good choices for experimenting.

Regards
Rob


posted: 29 Jan 2019 02:37

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Rob Manchester wrote:
Hope you are well. Would you take a minute or two to briefly explain the background to the EM-SF and EM4 options in the Templot gauge list.
Hi Rob,

Yes, I'm fine thanks. You?

Both these options were added to Templot after some correspondence on the forums, but I can't remember which ones or when, sorry.

Both are derived from the existence of 0.8mm check rail chairs from Exactoscale, which the Exactoscale web site describes as "EM" even though the flangeway gap for ordinary EM is in fact 1.0mm.

EM-SF uses 18.0mm gauge and a 0.8mm flangeway with existing EM wheelsets, to tighten up the standards for better running of EMGS and other EM kit wheels at existing back-to-backs. But unlike ordinary EM it won't accept widened RTR wheels. Check span is 16.4mm, so the minimum back-to-back is 16.5mm.

Gauge-widening is needed on sharp curves, for which 18.2mm flexi-track is suitable, transitioned down to 18.0mm over the last few sleepers connecting to EM-SF pointwork (in the same way that 00-SF modellers use 16.5mm flexi-track).

Wheels running on EM-SF layouts will also run on ordinary EM and vice versa, and pointwork to both standards can be used on the same layout, providing there are no RTR wheels.

RTR wheels (NMRA RP25/110) widened to EM have, or should have, a back-to-back of 16.4mm, and a flange thickness of 0.8mm, so they won't run on EM-SF.

EM-SF is worth looking at for anyone building an EM layout and definitely not intending to run RTR wheels. It looks better and will run a bit better than ordinary EM.

Pointwork to EM-SF can be added to an existing EM layout, providing there are no RTR wheels.

Did I mention that EM-SF won't work with RTR wheels? :)


EM4 is intended to allow EMGS and other EM kit wheels to be used on 18.83mm gauge track. In other words a sort of coarse version of P4, with 0.8mm flangeways. Wheels set to EM4 won't run on other EM tracks, and EM4 pointwork won't accept P4 wheels. So you are very much on your own if you choose EM4. There are some modellers wedded to 18.83mm gauge as a sort of religious belief, but who can't manage to get the fine P4 standards to work.

As with H0, EM4 breaks the golden rule that exact-scale gauge needs exact-scale wheel-widths -- otherwise the wheels won't fit behind scale-width valve gear, inside scale-width splashers, axleboxes, etc. I think EM4 is a daft idea, but it's there as a pre-set for those who want it.

cheers,

Martin. 

posted: 29 Jan 2019 04:10

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Rob and Martin
I wasn’t aware of this standard (EM SF)and it sounds interesting as the crossings are more than half towards P4 which for me is P4s biggest visual benefit, that and super smooth running when well executed. 
Does anyone do a set of gauges for the EM SF standard and what do you feel the downsides are?

Kind regards 

Andrew

posted: 29 Jan 2019 04:27

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
Hello Rob and Martin
I wasn’t aware of this standard (EM SF)and it sounds interesting as the crossings are more than half towards P4 which for me is P4s biggest visual benefit, that and super smooth running when well executed. 
Does anyone do a set of gauges for the EM SF standard and what do you feel the downsides are?
Hi Andrew,

You already have the most important gauge, the check gauge -- it's the same as regular EM, 17.2mm.

A 0.8mm crossing flangeway gauge should be easy to find as car spark-plug feeler gauges. If not, 0.8mm is very close to 1/32" (0.794mm).

It's likely that someone somewhere is still doing an original 18.0mm EM track gauge, but sorry I don't know where. Someone on EMGS might know, there is still a bit of a following for it.

The major downside is that you can't simply widen the wheels on RTR models, they must be replaced with at least Romford/Markits, and preferably EMGS-profile wheels.

Plus a bit more consideration to minimum radius and gauge-widening on sharp curves (that's where the 18.2mm flexi comes in), and a bit more care generally in pointwork construction.

Other than that, I think I would seriously consider it if I was starting a new EM layout.

cheers,

Martin.

posted: 29 Jan 2019 10:40

from:

Richard_Jones
 
Heswall - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Oh dear!

That's all very confusing!

Just like when I started on my O gauge mini-layout, totally confused by the plethora of different "standards", which is why that is being built with Peco track!

I will have to make sure if I do any more 4mm layout planning that I stick with "EM Dimensions" with 18.2 track gauge, that I have been using since I joined the EMGS in 1981......

confused of Heswall!

Best wishes for 2019......

Richard

posted: 29 Jan 2019 14:16

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks Martin, and of course I didn’t think it through, I already have one of the gauges and sourcing the flangeway gauge shouldn’t be difficult. However a bit too late for this build I fear! 
I do use Gibson wheels by and large with the odd engine having Ultascale, so presumably nothing to fear on that score?

Kind regards 
Andrew

posted: 29 Jan 2019 15:33

from:

Hayfield
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
982_291034_390000000.jpg982_291034_390000000.jpg
Every now and then old 18 mm EM gauges surface, here are two, I guess the one top right is tan earlier one and has a check rail flat on both sides, the plain one has two flats on the same side on the outer and inner rims opposite each other. 
Why have I got them ? I have a soft spot for gauges, if any are going cheap I buy them 
Last edited on 29 Jan 2019 15:38 by Hayfield
posted: 29 Jan 2019 18:40

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Yes, I am fine too thanks. Thanks for the explanation, I suspected EM-SF would be a good bet. I may try some crossing work and see how it runs before making any decisions. The unsuitable nature of Bachmann and Hornby ( and especially Dapol/Heljan) wheels ( presumably because the flange is thicker making a large enough back-to-back to span the checkrails impossible without wheels hitting the crossing nose ? ) isn't an issue on small layouts if you plan your roster in advance.

All my rolling stock gets Gibson wheels as a matter of course. The motive power that isn't provided for is mainly just those that have non-standard axle/gear arrangements such as Hornby class 31 diesels ( if there are any that haven't rotted the chassis :( ) and many of the DMU/EMU's available that have a central plastic gear muff into which half axles are inserted. A good plan in theory as you do away with wipers for pickup by using the bearing cups to perform this function.

I still don't understand check rail chairs being moulded to a particular dimension. That may work if you are used to setting the check rails with a crossing flangeway gauge :( :( but surely if you gauge the checkrails from the crossing nose then the gap isn't always going to be a suitable fit on the fixed check rail chairs ? Especially so on curved turnouts.....

I have On3 crossing templates on the go at the moment. That's the problem, every time I set out to make something I change my mind half way through and get diverted.

Thanks again for the info.
Rob




posted: 29 Jan 2019 18:54

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Rob Manchester wrote:
I still don't understand check rail chairs being moulded to a particular dimension. That may work if you are used to setting the check rails with a crossing flangeway gauge :( :( but surely if you gauge the checkrails from the crossing nose then the gap isn't always going to be a suitable fit on the fixed check rail chairs
Hi Rob,

If you use fixed check chairs, the check rails should be installed first, gauged from the crossing in the usual way. The stock rails are then threaded through them, and the track gauge to the stock rails is whatever it turns out to be.

It means that gauge-widening can't be used through pointwork. If it is needed, the check chairs will need to be cut in half so that the flangeway gap can widen.

cheers,

Martin.

posted: 29 Jan 2019 19:36

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks Martin.

Rob


posted: 29 Jan 2019 20:28

from:

Hayfield
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
The Exactoscale 0.8 mm check rail chairs would be fine for EM SF

posted: 30 Jan 2019 10:12

from:

Godfrey Earnshaw
 
Crawley - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Hayfield
Isn't that too simplistic a statement.
"The Exactoscale 0.8 mm check rail chairs would be fine for EM SF"

Don't you need to qualify it by saying the type of wheels used (RTR or EM profile)
If the statement is true for EM SF then it must be true for 00 SF, provided that the wheel profiles are the same.

Cheers Godders

posted: 30 Jan 2019 12:20

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Godfrey Earnshaw wrote:
If the statement is true for EM SF then it must be true for 00 SF, provided that the wheel profiles are the same.
Hi Godders,

To use 0.8mm flangeway gaps in 00 there are two options:

00-XF on 16.0mm gauge with 0.8mm flangeways. This means kit wheels to EMGS or RP25/88 profile are interchangeable with 00-SF and 00-BF at the same back-to-back. Minimum back-to-back is 14.5mm and it won't work with RTR wheels, unlike 00-SF and 00-BF.

00-XF pointwork can be mixed on layouts with 00-SF and 00-BF if there are no RTR wheels. They all have the same 15.2mm check gauge.

004 on 16.5mm gauge with 0.8mm flangeways. As with EM4 this requires a non-standard back-to-back which is not compatible with anything else, and likewise won't work with RTR wheels. It is for those with a religious attachment to 16.5mm gauge who want something finer than DOGA-Fine.

In all these cases, EM-SF, EM4, 00-XF, 004, wheels from Romford/Markits are marginal. They will work on straight and gently curved track, but any significant curving will require some gauge-widening. In EM4 and 004 they won't work with the standard Romford/Markits axles.

These two standards aren't in the Templot gauge list of pre-sets, but can easily be set up as custom settings. They are not in the pre-sets because I don't have the strength to keep on explaining them over and over again for 20 years, as I have been doing for 00-SF on RMweb and elsewhere. :?

The golden rule with choosing which standard to use is that you decide on your wheels first. Whereas the hobby for decades has been pre-occupied with deciding the track gauge first.

cheers,

Martin.

posted: 30 Jan 2019 15:30

from:

Hayfield
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Godfrey Earnshaw wrote:
Hi Hayfield
Isn't that too simplistic a statement.
"The Exactoscale 0.8 mm check rail chairs would be fine for EM SF"

Don't you need to qualify it by saying the type of wheels used (RTR or EM profile)
If the statement is true for EM SF then it must be true for 00 SF, provided that the wheel profiles are the same.

Cheers Godders
Godders
The first thing is it gives a 0.8 mm gap, if you choose to use this standard you follow the advice on wheels given

With adaption these chairs can be used for both EM & 00SF gauges, as they have a common 1 mm check rail gauge

On a 5 timber check rail I put the two outer chairs and 1 inner, I put two inner chairs on the stock rail (on smaller 4 timber check rails two outer chairs on the stock rails and two inner chairs on the check rails), 

I cut through the unused gap in the check rail chairs and save the resulting half chairs. 

The stock and check rails can be fitted using gauges, then the half chairs can be added in their respective places

As it happens there is no noticeable gap showing on both EM & 00SF, I also do the same for standard 16.5 but if you look close a tiny gap is visible. I feel its still better than chopping up standard chairs

As it happens the Exactoscale common crossing and additional switch rail chairs seem mostly to work fine which ever gauge. The obtuse and slip chairs an also be used, but you may need to use alternative chairs than those shown in the Exactoscale instructions for P4 crossings
Last edited on 30 Jan 2019 15:35 by Hayfield
posted: 27 Jul 2019 00:18

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin,

Returning again to the Hornby Class 31 diesels that I mentioned in the original post on this topic, I made an interesting discovery tonight :) The original Hornby wheels, as per usual for RTR, are approx 2.8mm in overall width. I hadn't paid them any more attention but it turns out that the wheels are rather unusual in that the effective flange width is the same as current Gibson wheels at 0.6mm. From squinting at the flanges it appears that they are (were ? ) produced with an almost zero radius where the flange meets the wheel back surface. Setting a pair of the Hornby wheels to 16.5 back-to-back and placing them on 18mm gauge track shows they are making contact only on the tyre tread with maybe 0.3mm side-to-side slop. I need to make some EM-SF crossing work soon so will check out the 'discovery' further.

Is there any down-side to this plan ? The class 31 is rather unusual in that it follows American practice in having an insulated gear muff and wheels live to stub axles that feed the track power into inserts in the axle boxes.

If the omission of a radius between the flange and tyre back doesn't cause any negative issues does it open the way for the modification of other RTR wheels by simply turning 0.2mm off the tye backs ? Mind you on most RTR models that take standard wheel/pickup systems it probably isn't worth it. Some of the smaller industrial prototypes modelled do have similar gear muff/stub axle set ups to the Class 31 so there may be some worth in it for them.

Thanks
Rob


posted: 27 Jul 2019 21:02

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Rob,

If the flanges are really only 0.6mm effective thickness they should be fine on EM-SF. You might even find they run better eased towards 16.6mm back-to-back, staying within the 17.2mm max back-to-flange.

Having a sharp corner on the back of the flange can lead to some rough running when they contact check rail flares. On the other hand in ideal conditions wheels barely contact the check rail flare -- if the check gauge, back-to-back and flange thickness are all spot-on, wheels just kiss the check rail when the opposite flange is against the rail head. But not all conditions are ideal. :)

If skimming wheel backs yourself you can round off the sharp corner a fraction. Some P4 modellers like to skim the backs of EM wheels for a deeper flange depth than standard P4 wheels.

cheers,

Martin.

posted: 28 Jul 2019 00:57

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Rob,

If the flanges are really only 0.6mm effective thickness they should be fine on EM-SF. You might even find they run better eased towards 16.6mm back-to-back, staying within the 17.2mm max back-to-flange.

Having a sharp corner on the back of the flange can lead to some rough running when they contact check rail flares. On the other hand in ideal conditions wheels barely contact the check rail flare -- if the check gauge, back-to-back and flange thickness are all spot-on, wheels just kiss the check rail when the opposite flange is against the rail head. But not all conditions are ideal. :)

If skimming wheel backs yourself you can round off the sharp corner a fraction. Some P4 modellers like to skim the backs of EM wheels for a deeper flange depth than standard P4 wheels.

cheers,

Martin.
Hi Martin,

Thanks you as usual for your informed insight. Mr. Markits informed me a while back that he sold his wheels to guys running P4 track which had me puzzled even though he lists P4 axles. I guess they are skimming the backs off the wheels :?

The only way I have of checking flange width is with the trusty dial caliper, holding one face against the wheel back and sliding the other face across the wheel tread until you feel it lifting where it meets the start of the flange. It seems to be a pretty consistent way to do it.

Lets scrap the vast number of track/wheel standard for 16.2 to 18.83 layouts and just have two and we can call them 4-Casual and 4-Expert. Make the first one 16.2 gauge with 1mm flangeways and the second one 18.xx with 0.7 or 0.8mm gaps  :D :D :D Seem to remember Iain Rice suggesting this about 25 years ago.....

Rob


posted: 28 Jul 2019 03:05

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Rob Manchester wrote:
The only way I have of checking flange width is with the trusty dial caliper, holding one face against the wheel back and sliding the other face across the wheel tread until you feel it lifting where it meets the start of the flange.
Hi Rob,

The effective flange thickness is determined by the rail head corner profile, so it's tricky to measure with calipers. Also it varies with different batches of rail... :(

Try this:

1. find a nice straight turnout.

2. measure the actual gap between the straight stock rail and its check rail -- spark plug feeler gauges?

3. drop a wheel onto the stock rail, and hold the flange firm against the rail head. Measure the gap behind it from the check rail with feeler gauges.

Subtract B from A ...

cheers,

Martin.

posted: 28 Jul 2019 19:36

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
Rob Manchester wrote:
The only way I have of checking flange width is with the trusty dial caliper, holding one face against the wheel back and sliding the other face across the wheel tread until you feel it lifting where it meets the start of the flange.
Hi Rob,

The effective flange thickness is determined by the rail head corner profile, so it's tricky to measure with calipers. Also it varies with different batches of rail... :(

Try this:

1. find a nice straight turnout.

2. measure the actual gap between the straight stock rail and its check rail -- spark plug feeler gauges?

3. drop a wheel onto the stock rail, and hold the flange firm against the rail head. Measure the gap behind it from the check rail with feeler gauges.

Subtract B from A ...

cheers,

Martin.
Hi Martin,
Thanks for that, good idea. Will have a go.

Rob


posted: 24 Jan 2020 22:36

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Rob,

The subject of EM-SF has cropped up on RMweb.

As usual Andy R has taken me to task over the reasoning. I have posted a reply:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94105-drakelow/&do=findComment&comment=3815177

I am getting a bit weary of posting these details over and over again down the years. :(

Who will Andy R have to argue with when that bus has done its stuff? Should I give him your email? :)

cheers,

Martin.
Last edited on 24 Jan 2020 22:37 by Martin Wynne
posted: 24 Jan 2020 23:04

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

I have posted my thoughts on RMweb. If Andy gets my email I will use your standard method :-

"It is not possible to discuss any aspect of track by Email....Please post it on Templot" :D

When my lathe is back in action I am going to try modifying some RTR wheels for EM-SF and see if it is possible. I was just going to reduce the flange width but it may need a bit more work than that - maybe a form tool of some sort to make sure I don't end up with razor sharp edges on the flanges :(

Rob


posted: 24 Jan 2020 23:28

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Rob Manchester wrote:
maybe a form tool of some sort to make sure I don't end up with razor sharp edges on the flanges
Hi Rob,

It shouldn't need a form tool. Just skim the back down to say 0.65mm max flange thickness, and round off the back corner with abrasive paper. It needs only to be enough to break the sharp edge.

I have replied to your post on RMweb with a note about back-to-backs. :)

cheers,

Martin.

posted: 24 Jan 2020 23:36

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks Martin,

Rob


posted: 25 Jan 2020 03:46

from:

Andrew Barrowman
 
USA

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Rob,

The subject of EM-SF has cropped up on RMweb.

As usual Andy R has taken me to task over the reasoning. I have posted a reply:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94105-drakelow/&do=findComment&comment=3815177

I am getting a bit weary of posting these details over and over again down the years. :(

Who will Andy R have to argue with when that bus has done its stuff? Should I give him your email? :)

cheers,

Martin.

Not just the Railway Police.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/150226-using-a-pic-micro-processor-to-control-trains/page/4/&tab=comments#comment-3813899








posted: 31 Jan 2020 19:47

from:

Ian Bunch
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
AR isn't on here is he?
Seeing as Drakelow is currently only one panel of EM can I leave that bit at 18.2mm and just use 18 and 0.8mm flangeway in the crossings? It is on a curve

posted: 31 Jan 2020 20:44

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Ian Bunch wrote:
AR isn't on here is he?
Seeing as Drakelow is currently only one panel of EM can I leave that bit at 18.2mm and just use 18 and 0.8mm flangeway in the crossings? It is on a curve
Hi Ian,
Scale width wheels that are setup for use on 18mm EM-SF will run fine on an existing EM layout gauged to 18.2mm. Using 18.2mm flexitrack is a good way to have a little gauge widening for tighter curves.

What you can't do is use Hornby/Bachmann etc wheels and just open up the back to backs for EM as some do for 18.2mm. If you set the back to back at 16.6mm that only leaves a maximum of 0.7mm for each wheel flange.

Rob


posted: 31 Jan 2020 20:51

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Ian Bunch wrote:
Seeing as Drakelow is currently only one panel of EM can I leave that bit at 18.2mm and just use 18 and 0.8mm flangeway in the crossings? It is on a curve
Hi Ian,

Certainly. That's what you would be doing if you were using plastic flexi-track for your plain track. If it is significantly curved track it may need gauge-widening to 18.2mm anyway.

EM and EM-SF use the same standard EM wheels and back-to-back settings (other than RTR wheels), so you can mix any track that such EM wheels would normally run on, on the same layout. So you could mix existing EM pointwork with new EM-SF pointwork if you wished.

Yes AR is a member here. No doubt he will be along shortly. :)

cheers,

Martin.

posted: 31 Jan 2020 20:59

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
p.s. my post crossed with Rob's.

For Standard EM and EM-SF:

Romford/Markits wheels: 16.5mm back-to-back (as standard Romford/Markits EM axles).

Gibson/Ultrascale wheels: 16.6mm back-to-back.

For Standard EM only:

RTR wheels (NMRA RP25/110 profile): 16.4mm back-to-back.

But Rob previously reported some RTR wheels having thinner flanges than RP25/110, in which case they would be OK on EM-SF at 16.5mm back-to-back.

cheers,

Martin.



about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems