Manchester Model Railway Society EM Standards

[t-b-g]

I have recently acquired a number of items of rolling stock built to the standards devised by those pioneers of finescale 4mm modelling based at the Manchester Club in the early days of the hobby. Alex Jackson, Sid Stubbs, John Langan and others.

 

They devised their own wheel profile, detailed on the Society website, which was based on a worn prototype wheel, so is nearer P4 in terms of width, flange etc. than EM. The gauge was 18mm, the original EM.

 

It has crossed my mind that it would be an interesting exercise to produce a small layout to these standards, to give the stock somewhere to run but I haven't been able to find a reference to the check rail clearances that they used.

 

Can anybody point me to an article or reference that might help me?

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

 

Tony Gee

Edited July 9, 2018 by t-b-g

[Il Grifone]

AFAIK the Manchester profile wheels were intended to run on track laid to the EM specification of the time with 1mm flangeways and 18mm gauge. The extra 0.2mm was added for freer running.

 

http://www.mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/making-wheels/

[t-b-g]

AFAIK the Manchester profile wheels were intended to run on track laid to the EM specification of the time with 1mm flangeways and 18mm gauge. The extra 0.2mm was added for freer running.

 

http://www.mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/making-wheels/

I have run some of the wagons, which have tiny flanges but are built rigid, with no compensation or springing, on Buckingham and was very surprised when they stayed on the rails. I know they used a straight 18mm gauge rather than 18.2mm but they didn't need the extra 0.2mm because with a 16.5mm back to back and thin flanges, it works on the narrower version.

 

It is the check rail gap that intrigues me. The flange is 18thou thick, just less than 0.5mm. The wheel is 80thou or 2mm thick. It would appear that a narrower check rail gap than 1mm should be possible. I know how good these blokes were and working to great levels of accuracy was second nature to them, so would they use a bigger check rail gap than they needed?

 

My sums suggest that a 0.8mm check rail gap will give a dimension over check rails of 16.4mm, which will just clear the 16.5mm back to back. So that should work although 1mm would be more forgiving.

 

But before I start anything, I just thought that somewhere, somebody would know what the people who designed it used.

[Enterprisingwestern]

How about an enquiry of some sort to the MMRS, I reckon it must at least have been mentioned in one of the old magazines, if not committed to print in an old constitution of some sort?. Maybe someone would remember.

 

Mike.

[t-b-g]

How about an enquiry of some sort to the MMRS, I reckon it must at least have been mentioned in one of the old magazines, if not committed to print in an old constitution of some sort?. Maybe someone would remember.

 

Mike.

I might have Dave Booth's contact details and If I don't, I know a man who does. Dave wrote some of the technical articles on the website and knew the guys.

 

I have also thought of another avenue. I know where Sid Stubbs' layout is (currently stored and looking for a new home). So I have emailed the good chap and asked if he can get to it to measure them. So hopefully I will get there one way or another.

[t-b-g]

Things happen quickly around here!

 

A small section of Northchurch, built by Sid Stubbs to the Manchester standards is being brought here on Friday, so I can measure to my hearts content.

 

Problem solved!

 

Thanks to those who have contributed.

 

Tony

[Doncaster]

Tony,

 

As you know I had a look at Broadchurch a couple of weeks ago. I went equipped with a vernier and current EM track gauges.

 

The gauge was 18mm give or take but the bit that intrigued me was that the flange way appears to differ between the straight and turnout roads. There appeared to be a slack EM flange way on the turnout road but a tight one on the straight road. I also had a wagon with my normal 16.5mm plus a bit back to back. It went through everything I tried it on.

 

Clever stuff.

 

V

[t-b-g]

Tony,

 

As you know I had a look at Broadchurch a couple of weeks ago. I went equipped with a vernier and current EM track gauges.

 

The gauge was 18mm give or take but the bit that intrigued me was that the flange way appears to differ between the straight and turnout roads. There appeared to be a slack EM flange way on the turnout road but a tight one on the straight road. I also had a wagon with my normal 16.5mm plus a bit back to back. It went through everything I tried it on.

 

Clever stuff.

 

V

 

Thanks "V". I am not sure if I fancy having different flangeway gaps either side of a crossing. It just doesn't seem natural!

[flubrush]

It is the check rail gap that intrigues me. The flange is 18thou thick, just less than 0.5mm. The wheel is 80thou or 2mm thick. It would appear that a narrower check rail gap than 1mm should be possible. I know how good these blokes were and working to great levels of accuracy was second nature to them, so would they use a bigger check rail gap than they needed?

 

My sums suggest that a 0.8mm check rail gap will give a dimension over check rails of 16.4mm, which will just clear the 16.5mm back to back. So that should work although 1mm would be more forgiving.

 

 

In UK S scale,  Ian Pusey's exact scale standards,  which we all use, stipulates an 18 thou flange width with a 28 thou (0.7mm) flangeway so a narrower flangeway would have been possible in EM.  I suspect that they stuck with the wider flangeways to retain some compatibility with the BRMSB EM standards of the time.

 

Mike Sharman used to provide wheels to "Manchester" profile which were much used by S scale modellers as the flange width was compatible with our standards.  The flange depth,  at 22 thou,  was a bit deeper than the 18 thou of the SSMRS flange,  but some S scale modellers preferred the deeper flange to give a bit more leeway.   The slightly narrower wheel width - 80 thou instead of the SSMRS 88 thou - still worked OK at common crossings.  I believe that Colin Seymour provides the "Manchester" flange profile in his wheel range.

 

Jim.

[Izzy]

Tony,

 

As you know I had a look at Broadchurch a couple of weeks ago. I went equipped with a vernier and current EM track gauges.

 

The gauge was 18mm give or take but the bit that intrigued me was that the flange way appears to differ between the straight and turnout roads. There appeared to be a slack EM flange way on the turnout road but a tight one on the straight road. I also had a wagon with my normal 16.5mm plus a bit back to back. It went through everything I tried it on.

 

Clever stuff.

 

V

 

Perhaps it was a combination of wanting to allow larger dia standard EM wheels of the time to easily negotiate the curved route (the angle at which the leading edge of the rear of the flange would meet the check rail), and maybe the checkrail clearance varied according to the curvature?   Intriguing.

 

Izzy

[t-b-g]

In UK S scale,  Ian Pusey's exact scale standards,  which we all use, stipulates an 18 thou flange width with a 28 thou (0.7mm) flangeway so a narrower flangeway would have been possible in EM.  I suspect that they stuck with the wider flangeways to retain some compatibility with the BRMSB EM standards of the time.

 

Mike Sharman used to provide wheels to "Manchester" profile which were much used by S scale modellers as the flange width was compatible with our standards.  The flange depth,  at 22 thou,  was a bit deeper than the 18 thou of the SSMRS flange,  but some S scale modellers preferred the deeper flange to give a bit more leeway.   The slightly narrower wheel width - 80 thou instead of the SSMRS 88 thou - still worked OK at common crossings.  I believe that Colin Seymour provides the "Manchester" flange profile in his wheel range.

 

Jim.

 

That is very interesting and thanks for posting. Although a good number of wagons and carriages have come my way, I had been giving some thought to what I should do for loco wheels as I will need to build some specially for the project if my conventional EM ones don't behave on the track. I may also convert some of my existing EM stock to be compatible. A friend has the lathe that Sid Stubbs used and I had wondered if he had a forming tool for the wheel profile but none has been found.

 

I had no idea that the profile was still around in any form, let alone in the S Gauge world.

 

If the deeper flange is still within prototype tolerances for a worn wheel in 4mm scale, it would also be for "S". I think some people forget just how much real wheels could wear before they were scrapped or given new tyres.

 

Many thanks

 

Tony

[t-b-g]

Perhaps it was a combination of wanting to allow larger dia standard EM wheels of the time to easily negotiate the curved route (the angle at which the leading edge of the rear of the flange would meet the check rail), and maybe the checkrail clearance varied according to the curvature?   Intriguing.

 

Izzy

 

They were not the sort of people who would have different width flangway gaps as a result of careless assembly, so I am assuming it was deliberate.

 

When the section of layout arrives, I will check it and report back on my findings. The section includes a double junction, so plenty of check rails and gaps to examine!

[hayfield]

I have recently acquired a number of items of rolling stock built to the standards devised by those pioneers of finescale 4mm modelling based at the Manchester Club in the early days of the hobby. Alex Jackson, Sid Stubbs, John Langan and others.

 

They devised their own wheel profile, detailed on the Society website, which was based on a worn prototype wheel, so is nearer P4 in terms of width, flange etc. than EM. The gauge was 18mm, the original EM.

 

It has crossed my mind that it would be an interesting exercise to produce a small layout to these standards, to give the stock somewhere to run but I haven't been able to find a reference to the check rail clearances that they used.

 

Can anybody point me to an article or reference that might help me?

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

 

Tony Gee

 

 

Tony

 

I have one or two old 18mm roller gauges, no idea if the check rail standards are the same though

[t-b-g]

Tony

 

I have one or two old 18mm roller gauges, no idea if the check rail standards are the same though

The junk we keep, on the grounds that it might be useful one day!

 

Thinking about it, I have a drawer somewhere with some ancient gauges which belonged to George Norton, who was working in EM in the 1950s. I will have to get the vernier on them as there is a good chance they are 18mm too.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[t-b-g]

I have just spotted the standards for fine EM in Templot under "other gauges".

 

The splendid chap Martin Wynne may have answered all my queries without even trying!

 

He shows the check rail gap as 0.8mm, which fits in with my calculations and if these wheels are not "Fine EM" I don't know what is.

 

A template has been printed off and a trial turnout will be constructed for test purposes.

[flubrush]

I had no idea that the profile was still around in any form, let alone in the S Gauge world.

 

Tony,

 

The S scale tyre profile comes directly from a scaled down prototype loco wheel tyre.  Ian Pusey's methods of generating an exact scale set of standards was to scale the prototype by 64. :-)   I have supplied the same scaled drawing of this tyre to Newtech to get our form tools made and also to David White at Slaters to get wagon wheels provided to the standard.   The flange width comes out at 18 thou and flange depth at 18 thou.

 

It was more than likely that the Manchester people were working from the same,  or similar, but found that 16 thou flange width and depth was a step too far with rigid suspension and that 18 thou width and 22 thou depth was a workable solution.  They weren't the only ones looking at finer standards.  Some years ago I saw some S scale locomotives built by the late Richard Harwood around 1960 which had,  to my eyes,  pretty well scale flange dimensions and I know that he wasn't the only one experimenting.  I believe that Ian Pusey's drawing up the S scale exact standards in 1963/64 could have been to pull together the work of all the people experimenting.   The EEM group in 4mm were doing similar around the same time.

 

Jim.

Edited July 10, 2018 by flubrush

[martin_wynne]

I have just spotted the standards for fine EM in Templot under "other gauges".

 

The splendid chap Martin Wynne may have answered all my queries without even trying!

 

He shows the check rail gap as 0.8mm, which fits in with my calculations and if these wheels are not "Fine EM" I don't know what is.

 

A template has been printed off and a trial turnout will be constructed for test purposes.

 

Hi,

 

There are 2 standards using 0.8mm flangeway gaps in EM. These are for use with the 0.8mm check rail chairs which are available from Exactoscale/C&L: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_347_348&product_id=3938

 

EM-SF is on 18.0 mm track gauge, so the check gauge is 17.2mm and the BEF is therefore also 17.2mm max. This means that the maximum back-to-back should be set to 17.2mm minus the flange thickness. If the flange thickness is 0.5mm that makes a maximum back-to-back of 16.7mm for EM-SF. Get as close to this as possible without exceeding it, for the best running.

 

 

EM4 is on 18.8 mm track gauge (as P4 flexi), so the check gauge is 18.0mm and the BEF is therefore also 18.0mm max. This means that the maximum back-to-back should be set to 18.0mm minus the flange thickness. If the flange thickness is 0.5mm that makes a maximum back-to-back of 17.5mm for EM4. Get as close to this as possible without exceeding it, for the best running.

 

 

p.s. these are not the standard EM from EMGS, which uses 1.0mm flangeways on 18.2mm track gauge. The check gauge is 17.2mm (same as EM-SF).

 

Martin. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by martin_wynne

[t-b-g]

Hi,

 

There are 2 standards using 0.8mm flangeway gaps in EM. These are for use with the 0.8mm check rail chairs which are available from Exactoscale/C&L: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_347_348&product_id=3938

 

EM-SF is on 18.0 mm track gauge, so the check gauge is 17.2mm and the BEF is therefore also 17.2mm max. This means that the maximum back-to-back should be set to 17.2mm minus the flange thickness. If the flange thickness is 0.5mm that makes a maximum back-to-back of 16.7mm for EM-SF. Get as close to this as possible without exceeding it, for the best running.

 

 

EM4 is on 18.8 mm track gauge (as P4 flexi), so the check gauge is 18.0mm and the BEF is therefore also 18.0mm max. This means that the maximum back-to-back should be set to 18.0mm minus the flange thickness. If the flange thickness is 0.5mm that makes a maximum back-to-back of 17.5mm for EM4. Get as close to this as possible without exceeding it, for the best running.

 

 

p.s. these are not the standard EM from EMGS, which uses 1.0mm flangeways on 18.2mm track gauge. The check gauge is 17.2mm (same as EM-SF).

 

Martin.

 

Many thanks Martin.

 

I don't really want to tamper with the wheels or the back to back as they were turned and set up by Sid Stubbs and possibly others. They are very firmly fixed on their own pattern of axles with a long thin outside bearing, so can't be removed easily without dismantling The screwed together underframes. The back to back is a very consistent 16.5mm and the flange, although specified in the dimensions and standards as 0.018" (approx. 0.457mm) is, for all practical purposes 0.5mm and measures that on my vernier.

 

I have just spent an hour or so making some 0.8mm check gauges and have built up a crossing nose based on your EM - SF option and I am happy to report total success. Even without checkrails a wagon glides through with no dip or problems of any sort. With check rails added, the Manchester profile wheel goes through nicely and so do Gibson wheels.

 

To me, the difference between EM and P4 that stands out is the fact that the check gap is as wide as the rail in EM but this gives me a P4 look with conventional EM wheels.

 

I can't see it working with old fashioned Romfords or suchlike but I won't be putting them on anything! This is a snap on the rather poor camera on my tablet but I hope it gives the idea. It is just a trial and the layout won't be pcb sleepers.

[martin_wynne]

I have just spent an hour or so making some 0.8mm check gauges and have built up a crossing nose based on your EM - SF option and I am happy to report total success

 

Thanks.

 

As far as I know you are the only one ever to have tried the EM-SF option in Templot.

 

It should work with all existing EMGS wheels and NMRA RP-25/88 wheels (0.6mm flanges), providing the back-to-back is not less than 16.5mm.

 

Romford/Markits wheels will be marginal, because of their thicker 0.7mm flanges.

 

It won't work with RTR wheels (NMRA RP-25/110) having 0.8mm flanges. For those use standard EM with the back-to-back set to 16.4mm max.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[davefrk]

< EM-SF is on 18.0 mm track gauge, so the check gauge is 17.2mm and the BEF is therefore also 17.2mm max. This means that the maximum back-to-back should be set to 17.2mm minus the flange thickness. If the flange thickness is 0.5mm that makes a maximum back-to-back of 16.7mm for EM-SF. Get as close to this as possible without exceeding it, for the best running.>

 

 

Hi Tony, it's interesting that Martyn has quoted these specs as a few of us EMGS members are working to a BtoB of between 16.65 and 16.7mm with fine flanged wheels i.e. Gibson and a check rail gap of about 0.9mm and it works very well. It does mean though that some loco wheels need longer axles so that the axle is still flush with the wheel boss. The wheels all have fine flanges as quoted and older Romfords don't really cut it. The few recent Romfords I have left are mostly okay with occasional bump due to tightness at the check rails. Some recent RTR wheel s do work at this spec but only some! The gauge is 18.2mm.

 

This was a test of a train with wheels all set to 16.65mm BtoB and I think it speaks for itself.

 

 

All the best,

 

Dave Franks.

[t-b-g]

< EM-SF is on 18.0 mm track gauge, so the check gauge is 17.2mm and the BEF is therefore also 17.2mm max. This means that the maximum back-to-back should be set to 17.2mm minus the flange thickness. If the flange thickness is 0.5mm that makes a maximum back-to-back of 16.7mm for EM-SF. Get as close to this as possible without exceeding it, for the best running.>

 

 

Hi Tony, it's interesting that Martyn has quoted these specs as a few of us EMGS members are working to a BtoB of between 16.65 and 16.7mm with fine flanged wheels i.e. Gibson and a check rail gap of about 0.9mm and it works very well. It does mean though that some loco wheels need longer axles so that the axle is still flush with the wheel boss. The wheels all have fine flanges as quoted and older Romfords don't really cut it. The few recent Romfords I have left are mostly okay with occasional bump due to tightness at the check rails. Some recent RTR wheel s do work at this spec but only some! The gauge is 18.2mm.

 

This was a test of a train with wheels all set to 16.65mm BtoB and I think it speaks for itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vNZioYlss

 

All the best,

 

Dave Franks.

Malcolm Crawley and I adopted 16.7mm back to back for Gibson/Maygib and 16.8mm for Sharman wheels many years ago. Sharman were always intended to be wider B2B as they were thinner and had thinner flanges.

 

The gauge was changed from 18 to 18.2mm after Romford wheels on their EM axles were tight between the rails due to their thicker flanges. We got decent results with the wider B2B and you clearly do as well.

 

I know the EMGS had discussions about updating the standards and decided not to make any official changes due to the number of people still using older or RTR wheels.

 

Still, nothing to stop us being rebels!

 

Tony

Edited July 10, 2018 by t-b-g

[t-b-g]

Thanks.

 

As far as I know you are the only one ever to have tried the EM-SF option in Templot.

 

It should work with all existing EMGS wheels and NMRA RP-25/88 wheels (0.6mm flanges), providing the back-to-back is not less than 16.5mm.

 

Romford/Markits wheels will be marginal, because of their thicker 0.7mm flanges.

 

It won't work with RTR wheels (NMRA RP-25/110) having 0.8mm flanges. For those use standard EM with the back-to-back set to 16.4mm max.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Most interesting Martin. I did wonder if anybody else was still using such standards but it seems that if they are, they are not using Templot. I noticed a title "Midland Central" on the Templot print and wondered if that was the P.Way the drawing is based on or the name of a layout project that somebody else was working on.

 

There will be no RTR or coarser wheels appearing. Mixing different wheel standards has always been something I avoid wherever possible and even mixing the Manchester wheels and Gibson's had to be tested before I would be happy proceeding.

 

A part of me has always tried to avoid following the crowd, so if I am the first to build a layout to these standards for a while, I relish the prospect!

[martin_wynne]

On 10/07/2018 at 16:16, t-b-g said:

I noticed a title "Midland Central" on the Templot print and wondered if that was the P.Way the drawing is based on or the name of a layout project that somebody else was working on.

 

There will be no RTR or coarser wheels appearing. Mixing different wheel standards has always been something I avoid wherever possible and even mixing the Manchester wheels and Gibson's had to be tested before I would be happy proceeding.

 

Hi Tony,

 

"Midland Central" is simply the default project title in Templot. It seemed more railwaylike than calling it "untitled" or whatever. Users are intended to change it to their own project title, but I suspect few ever do.

 

There is no harm in mixing different wheels on a layout, within reason. Provided always that you adjust the back-to-back accordingly to suit the flange thickness. The prevailing belief that the back-to-back is sacrosanct and should be the same fixed dimension for all is of course wrong. I'm a bit surprised that you said Sid used 16.5mm back to back with such thin flanges. The optimum back-to-back causes the back of one wheel to just kiss the check rail, when the opposite flange is running against the rail head. This does vary to some extent according to the rail section in use and the top corner radius on it. For the best way to set back-to-backs, see: https://85a.uk/00-sf/ and scroll about half-way down.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited May 11, 2022 by martin_wynne
updated link

[t-b-g]

Hi Tony,

 

"Midland Central" is simply the default project title in Templot. It seemed more railwaylike than calling it "untitled" or whatever. Users are intended to change it to their own project title, but I suspect few ever do.

 

There is no harm in mixing different wheels on a layout, within reason. Provided always that you adjust the back-to-back accordingly to suit the flange thickness. The prevailing belief that the back-to-back is sacrosanct and should be the same fixed dimension for all is of course wrong. I'm a bit surprised that you said Sid used 16.5mm back to back with such thin flanges. The optimum back-to-back causes the back of one wheel to just kiss the check rail, when the opposite flange is running against the rail head. This does vary to some extent according to the rail section in use and the top corner radius on it. For the best way to set back-to-backs, see: http://4-sf.uk/ and scroll about half-way down.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

I think it had something to do with the shape of the flange. The wheels have a lovely coned tread and a nice curve between the tread and the flange. It makes measuring the flange width quite tricky as you are measuring to a point on a curve. Plus the narrower gauge of 18mm rather than 18.2mm means that the B2B plus two flanges gives 17.5mm. This leaves a total sideplay of the wheels between rails on straight track at 0.5mm and slightly less on curves.

 

I don't know if they used gauge widening on curves but that amount of play is exactly the same as a Gibson wheel with a 16.6mm back to back on 18.2mm track.

 

My sums, using 18mm gauge, 0.8mm check gap, 16.5mm back to back and 0.5mm flanges work out as the wheel "missing" the crossing nose by 0.2mm. Not quite the ideal "just kissing" but not a huge gap.

 

I am quite an experienced track builder. Not in the same league as people like Norman Solomon but I have built many hundreds of points, mostly in EM. So I do tend to get a good "feel" of what is going to work and what isn't and I am quite comfortable with the dimensions I have.

 

I really don't fancy altering the wheels on the stock, so The B2B will stay 16.5 (although I accept that 16.6 or 16.65 would be better). I know the track will work with the Manchester profile and Gibson's set to an accurate 16.5 B2B and that will be how I proceed.

 

Many thanks for your input and for that wonderful but of software you did for us!

[timbowilts]

< EM-SF is on 18.0 mm track gauge, so the check gauge is 17.2mm and the BEF is therefore also 17.2mm max. This means that the maximum back-to-back should be set to 17.2mm minus the flange thickness. If the flange thickness is 0.5mm that makes a maximum back-to-back of 16.7mm for EM-SF. Get as close to this as possible without exceeding it, for the best running.>

 

 

Hi Tony, it's interesting that Martyn has quoted these specs as a few of us EMGS members are working to a BtoB of between 16.65 and 16.7mm with fine flanged wheels i.e. Gibson and a check rail gap of about 0.9mm and it works very well. It does mean though that some loco wheels need longer axles so that the axle is still flush with the wheel boss. The wheels all have fine flanges as quoted and older Romfords don't really cut it. The few recent Romfords I have left are mostly okay with occasional bump due to tightness at the check rails. Some recent RTR wheel s do work at this spec but only some! The gauge is 18.2mm.

 

This was a test of a train with wheels all set to 16.65mm BtoB and I think it speaks for itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7vNZioYlss

 

All the best,

 

Dave Franks.

Wow! Shouldn’t it have a 9F on the front running at that speed, like the GC Windcutters?

 

Tim T