Manchester Model Railway Society EM Standards

[Tim V]

From the June 1959 definitive article by Sid stubbs on making wheels, here is the profile he said he was using at that time.

 

 

[t-b-g]

From the June 1959 definitive article by Sid stubbs on making wheels, here is the profile he said he was using at that time.

Stubbs.jpg

I have those articles and they are very interesting. They almost make me want to have a go at making wheels!

 

There were some excellent articles by Sid Stubbs in MRJ too, covering making your own gears and various locos. Along with a home made "scale micrometer" capable of measuring something ridiculous like a scale 1/64th of an inch in 4mm scale.

 

Clever chaps indeed.

 

Was there ever a similar article about how they created the track standards? An article on "Presson" explains the actual construction methods but gives no dimensions other than saying it is EM.

Edited July 10, 2018 by t-b-g

[Tim V]

July 1963 MRN? Malcolm Cross on progress with EEM?

[t-b-g]

July 1963 MRN? Malcolm Cross on progress with EEM?

Thanks Tim. I don't have that one but I know a man who does, who will no doubt scan and email to me after I ring him up!

 

Edited to add

 

Phone call made. EEM was 18.8mm gauge! Maybe an early version of P4 before it was fully developed and given that name? Malcolm Cross was, if memory serves, one of the early P4 people.

 

There are dimensions for EM in the article at 18mm gauge but with 1mm check rail gaps so probably not to the Manchester standards.

 

Thank for trying!

 

Tony

Edited July 10, 2018 by t-b-g

[t-b-g]

I took the Manchester wheeled carriages and wagons over to have a run on "Narrow Road" today. This is a conventional EM layout with 18.2mm gauge and 1mm check rail gaps and lots of opportunity for a decent run.

 

I didn't build my hopes up too much that stock with basically P4 profile wheels would cope with some of the complex trackwork and less than perfect rail joints at baseboard breaks but quite the contrary. It ran superbly. Better than our own stock in fact! I put that down to completely consistent wheel profiles, truly round and concentric wheel and absolutely square and parallel construction, plus plenty of weight. Everything ran with a rock steady motion, with no wobbling, hunting or other wiggling about!

 

A 25 wagon rake of mixed freight stock, a 4 coach clerestory Midland set and a 5 coach Non corridor Midland Bain set all behaved perfectly apart from one bogie where some damage had not been spotted before we put it on the track and a bogie side frame was out of alignment.

 

I was very impressed and it really made me think how much we can still learn from some of these pioneers of the hobby.

[Il Grifone]

I find that P4 wheels regauged for 18.2mm gauge will run happily on track to EM standards. Any problems are due to the track not being within tolerance.

 

"Must try harder!"

[t-b-g]

Well, here we are, 4 years later. Nothing ever happens fast in my modelling but a couple of small layouts using the deduced Manchester EM standards of 18mm gauge and 0.8mm flangway gaps have been started. One has all the track laid and I can confirm that it has been a total success in terms of smooth running through points.

 

This coming weekend, the first public showing of part of one of them, along with some of the models that came from the late Sid Stubbs, will be on show as a "demo" stand at EXPO EM at Bracknell.

 

I attach a snap of the pointwork.

 

If anybody who has joined in the discussion is coming to the show, please come and say hello.

 

 

[martin_wynne]

56 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

using the deduced Manchester EM standards of 18mm gauge and 0.8mm flangway gaps

 

Looking very good. 🙂

 

Just a reminder for anyone coming late to this topic that these standards are listed in Templot as EM-SF. Suitable 0.8mm check rail chairs are available from Exactoscale.

 

Martin.

[Miss Prism]

The flares on those checks and wings look very Midland!

 

[t-b-g]

Just now, Miss Prism said:

The flares on those checks and wings look very Midland!

 

 

They are certainly pre-grouping but they are based on GNR drawings. The layout is actually an LD&ECR themed one but as far as I can tell, their P.Way was either a direct copy, or very closely based on, GNR practice. The sleeper spacing on a 30ft rail length and the buffer stops are certainly as near to identical as I can tell.

 

I am glad you spotted the flares. They are quite distinctive, with the ends being curved rather than the more often seen angled bend.

 

The other feature is that there are 4 different sleeper widths. They had 10", 12", 14" and 16" at various places.

 

99.9% of people pay little attention to such details and would hardly notice it but some of us enjoy getting really "into the weeds" in such matters!

[philsandy]

Great looking trackwork.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, philsandy said:

Great looking trackwork.

 

Thanks.

 

It still needs things like dummy fishplates and obviously painting and ballasting but I am very happy with how it looks. Templot was a huge help as I was able to put in a gentle sweeping curve through the whole formation which certainly improves the look. It also alters the lengths and angles slightly, which makes for a more interesting appearance as the points are all slightly different. I wouldn't have dared do that without the software to help me.

 

The big visible difference compared to "normal" EM is the relationship of the rail head width to the check rail gap. We are only talking about 0.2mm difference in gauge and in the check rail gap but having the rail head wider than the check rail gap just looks more "real" than having the gap as wide as the rail head. It also gives a smaller gap for wheels to drop in through the crossing, which should lead to smoother running.

 

 

[Miss Prism]

Where have you gapped your closure rails?

 

[martin_wynne]

A couple of notes about the EM-SF Manchester standard:

 

0.8mm (1/32") plywood strip is available from the EMGS and elsewhere, or as offcuts from laser cutting. It would make a solder-proof non-heat-sink crossing flangeway gauge shim for EM-SF. Be a bit selective to find a piece exactly 0.8mm thick.

 

The check gauge for EM-SF is 17.2mm -- the same as regular EM, so the EMGS check gauges can be used. This also means that the wheel back-to-back settings are the same, so wheels set to run on EM-SF will also run on regular EM.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

13 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Where have you gapped your closure rails?

 

 

Here?

 

 

 

[Miss Prism]

Ah yes, that'll do nicely...

[robmanchester]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The big visible difference compared to "normal" EM is the relationship of the rail head width to the check rail gap. We are only talking about 0.2mm difference in gauge and in the check rail gap but having the rail head wider than the check rail gap just looks more "real" than having the gap as wide as the rail head. It also gives a smaller gap for wheels to drop in through the crossing, which should lead to smoother running.

 

 

Yes, spot on. EM-SF is a very sensible option rather than P4 if you want fine scale looking track but there is more flexibilty for buying used models and running stock from other layouts. Just watch the flange width - no RTR type wheels!

 

Rob

 

[Denbridge]

I've only just come across this very interesting thread. I believe the 'Manchester' standards are very similar to those adopted by Pendon which were developed by Guy Williams & The founder of Ultrascale, whos name currently eludes me. At one time Pendons EMF wheels were commercially available from Ultrascale. I bought several sets back in the day, but last time I looked at Ultrascales website, they seem to have been discontinued

Edited May 11, 2022 by Denbridge
Error

[t-b-g]

28 minutes ago, robmanchester said:

Yes, spot on. EM-SF is a very sensible option rather than P4 if you want fine scale looking track but there is more flexibilty for buying used models and running stock from other layouts. Just watch the flange width - no RTR type wheels!

 

Rob

 

 

I have a good collection of my own EM stock as I have been modelling in it for over 40 years now.

 

I attach a rather poor snap of a couple of the locos that will run on the layout, not built by me but by my much missed friend, the late Malcolm Crawley. The 2-4-0 is from a Jidenco kit and the 0-6-0 from the kit Malcolm designed for George Norton (now by London Road Models).

 

 

I don't really do RTR. Whenever I exhibit a layout, I always have a look around the hall to see if there are any other layouts where every loco, carriage and wagon is either kit or scratchbuilt. It happens sometimes but it is still fairly rare, especially in 4mm scale standard gauge.

 

In recent times, I have weakened and I have a Bachmann MR 0-4-4T which cannot be converted to EM using the original wheels as they don't fit in the splashers. I bought it as it is ideal for the MR pre-grouping period that Sid Stubbs adopted. I have a kit built one in LMS condition with Ultrascale wheels, so the mechanism may swap over. I also have a Bachmann "Collectors Club" GCR "Pom-pom" which is a beautiful model. I have an LNER J11 also with Ultrascale wheels that I built many years ago when I modelled the 1930s and will also look to swap that mechanism. I have my own kit built "Pom pom" in GCR livery already, so it is not a high priority.

 

The layout will be set in the Sheffield area, on the Sheffield District Railway, just after the 1907 take over of the LD&ECR by the GCR. At the time, trains were worked by a mix of MR and GCR locos and stock (including ex LD&ECR types), so I can have plenty of variety. 

 

In some ways I am a bit reluctant to break my own "No RTR" policy but the Bachmann offerings are too good looking to not use.

[t-b-g]

16 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

I've only just come across this very interesting thread. I believe the 'Manchester' standards are very similar to those adopted by Pendon which were developed by Guy Williams & The founder of Ultrascale, whos name currently eludes me. At one time Pendons EMF wheels were commercially available from Ultrascale. I bought several sets back in the day, but last time I looked at Ultrascales website, they seem to have been discontinued

 

You are not alone in looking at the Ultrascale website to see if there is any sign of them. The name you were trying to recall is very likely Brian Rogers. There is a slightly confusing entry in the FAQ section of the website, which suggests that the OO/EM wheels sold now are to the Pendon standard. I thought I had read something by Guy Williams, which said that Ultrascale did an OO/EM wheel plus a Pendon EM wheel. I don't know which is correct but I do know that the wheels Ultrascale sell now work really well with the track I have built.

 

So maybe they dropped the "standard" OO/EM wheel and now only sell either the Pendon one or P4.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

Where have you gapped your closure rails?

 

 

It isn't the best quality photo (I have since bought a new camera!) but Martin has spotted the gaps in the fuzziness of the blown up image. The blades will still slide out at this stage to allow one of the plastic "locking" fishplates to be inserted. You can also see a couple of places where chairs are missing. This is where I put wire droppers down through the sleeper and then attach half chairs either side to hide the wire.

[hayfield]

What a great thread, not only interesting and informative, but no standards wars, just a group of folk who are interested in others views

 

Thanks to all

[t-b-g]

A better photo showing the isolation gap. The plastic fishplates have just been added. I hope to rig up some temporarily wiring before the weekend so although I will only have one route through, I hope to have something moving. I also attach a photo of my point operating mechanism, or part of it. Based on the old Hornby Dublo mechanism, it gives an accurate 2mm of movement, reduced to 1.5mm at the blades by the Z wire "omega" loop arrangement. The flat plate can be moved from side to side by anything from a motor to a finger but the movement at the blade is always correct and no pressure is required to hold the blades tight to the srockrail. I intend using servos and wanted to remove the need for the servo adjustment to be critical. With this, overtravel is not a problem and there will be no spring pushing back on the servo. I also attach a photo showing the tiebar/stretcher bars I have made.

[t-b-g]

After a slightly interrupted evening, I am pleased to report that the temporary wiring is now all in place and a couple of test locos have run up and down with no difficulty apart from a tender wheel lifting on the check rails. All that was needed was a slight tweak of the back to back as it was just under 16.5mm. The stock from Sid Stubbs that I tried all ran perfectly. 

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Perhaps it's my old eyes, Tony, but in the first photo I genuinely cannot see any gaps between the vees of the two points in the middle.