Jump to content

CloggyDog

EMGS commissions Peco for RTR EM Gauge bullhead track/turnouts

Recommended Posts

 

playing devils advocate but is there a members group for oo if you model in oo as youre saying if youre modelling in EM why wouldn't you be a member of the EMGS?  I don't think there is.

 

Yes, see: http://www.doubleogauge.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

playing devils advocate but is there a members group for oo if you model in oo as youre saying if youre modelling in EM why wouldn't you be a member of the EMGS?  I don't think there is.

If you read a little deeper, then he mentioned that he has read the EMGS Newsletter! Please also read comment 436!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm advised by a EMGS member who hoped to purchase some (20 lengths) of the Peco EM track at ExpoEM next week, that it's not available yet.
Further, other similar track available from the Society is 'Out of Stock'.
If there is a further update on this - e.g. there will be track available - it would be appreciated.
All E. & O.E.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Penlan said:

I'm advised by a EMGS member who hoped to purchase some (20 lengths) of the Peco EM track at ExpoEM next week, that it's not available yet.
Further, other similar track available from the Society is 'Out of Stock'.
If there is a further update on this - e.g. there will be track available - it would be appreciated.
All E. & O.E.

 

 

Interesting that this member knows more than I do and I’m the trade officer so I would hope I know what is happening. 

 

I’m could explain why the other track that we stock is listed as not being in stock but all that happens is those who think they can do better start arguing with me and I really can’t be bother to explain my self several times. 

 

If you would like to know more then please contact me via the email printed in the Comcast is box in each newsletter and I will reply. 

 

Thanks 

simon 

The trade officer who doesn't know anything compared to members!!!!!!

Edited by Mr.S.corn78
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Simon, the EMGS member will have read your reply, and presumably take note.
My understanding is he attempted to pre-order, this Saturday (11/05/2019), Peco* track for collection at ExpoEM, and presumably was advised that other types are 'out of stock', through the  ordering process on the Society's Members only web-site.
* In respect of the Peco track, I'm only repeating what I was told earlier this Sunday morning by a EMGS Member.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I thought somebody might have a made a comment by now.

EMGS – Peco Track
Following the availability of the new track to attendee’s of ExpoEM, I was passed a couple of lengths for comment -
JimF51 in a post on 10/1/2019 made the comment ‘if you are not a member, and have no intent on joining (whether you model in EM or not), than really, you have no say, so why comment on here?’

Well the track has been advertised in the Model Railway press; presumably to encourage more people to take up  EM gauge trackwork etc., which I believe has been successful in that there are many new members joining the Society.  Probably because of a  more commercial approach through a major supplier (PECO) . 

Also this topic is open to all RMweb members to comment on, be it positive or otherwise.

I’m surprised that nobody else yet has made a comment, in view of the amount of track collected at ExpoEM.
The track is advertised as ‘per yard length’, a yard is approx., 914mm - I shall use metric measurements from now on. The track is actually 840mm long with a further 74mm of rail at the ends, which according to an article from the EMGS in Model Railway Journal (MRJ) No, 269 is to allow enough rail to be available still within the track bases for trimming when the track is curved, I got the length of track down to a 190mm radius (7.5”) before the rail length matched the bases. As I have a minimum of 1,200mm (4’) and normally 2,120mm (6’) radii, I would have appreciated some further sleepers.
SHarris on 8/1/2019 made the comment that ‘The remaining 75mm or so is left bare - consider that extra 3" a bonus for the construction of checkrails and suchlike’. A bit tongue in cheek I think.
An irony for me is that most of my baseboards are a standard 912mm long; this is so they can be packed face to face for exhibitions etc., and individually, can easily be handled by myself at home.  Thus a 914mm length of track would have been useful, I am extending the layout ‘Penlan’ into a roundy-roundy and there are a number of 912mm long boards that will have straight track on them as a scenic fiddle yard, probably 36 x 914mm (-2mm) lengths.
I can understand why the EMGS has gone for 2.5  60’ bases.  The reasons have been commented on ad nauseam in this topic already.

I am advised that the EMGS has not listed the bases as a separate item in their lists (yet), to enable those who wish to keep the full length of rail as a ‘yard’ length of track, to do so, perhaps this could be considered, even if it means those who have bought track have to prove they require one ‘half’ track base for each length they’ve purchased.
The rail itself I assume is the standard Peco BH rail, it’s symmetrical, e.g. the head and toe are the same size, which is understandable if costs are to be kept down, though it’s not the same as the BH rail with a large head, small toe available for last 50+ years through the Society or others.
The overall height of the track is 4mm, which is 0.5mm more than most of the other options available such as ply/rivet/rail, ply/C&L chairs/rail, copperclad/rail and some of the other track available at approx., 3.5mm, though Scaleway ( I have bits of) is only 3.2mm high.
The PECO sleepers and ties are thicker – more ballast needed – For me, the scoring of texture on the sleepers is perhaps a little overdone, but I’m sure others will welcome it.
There is a nice, though subtle representation of the keys in the (3 bolt) chairs, at least they look knocked in, as opposed to say the C&L chairs, where just some of the key seems to be going into the chair.
Overall, presumably the purpose is to encourage people to become EM modelers and join the Society and this has been met.  I wish the Society every success.
I have been an EM modeler since 1962, was a Member for many years and at one time edited the West Midlands EMGauge Area Group Newsletter etc.; I’m not an armchair modeller, though well past three score years and ten.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy

 

As someone who has also purchased some EMGS/ Peco track, I have to say I agree with your comments. I think the EMGS have taken a bold step which is to be applauded but the result could be even better. I expect you will get some brickbats. I once dared to say something negative about P4 on RMWeb and I was rightly corrected and I now know that everything to do with P4 is perfect. Hopefully members of the EMGS are more open minded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John-Miles said:

Hopefully members of the EMGS are more open minded.

 

Well, we do accept P4 modellers with open arms!

 

Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a longtime member of both the EMGS and the S4 Society, I have found that both welcome modellers of all "disciplines" openly and warmly. Sadly the old memories of the difficulties in the early days of P4 and the attitude of a few original members are still trotted out today to disparage the S4 Society and its members.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing the politics of EM/P4/S4 and their various complications into a discussion on track heights seems a little perverse. The point clearly made by Penlan was that the new EM gauge track, and presumably the points as well, are a different height to the other commercially available track systems. As a result getting the top of the rail level, and incase the point is clouded by the politics, that’s what your stock runs on, means that some careful packing will be required somewhere. So it’s not a universal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Penlan said:

Well I thought somebody might have a made a comment by now.

EMGS – Peco Track
Following the availability of the new track to attendee’s of ExpoEM, I was passed a couple of lengths for comment -
JimF51 in a post on 10/1/2019 made the comment ‘if you are not a member, and have no intent on joining (whether you model in EM or not), than really, you have no say, so why comment on here?’

Well the track has been advertised in the Model Railway press; presumably to encourage more people to take up  EM gauge trackwork etc., which I believe has been successful in that there are many new members joining the Society.  Probably because of a  more commercial approach through a major supplier (PECO) . 

Also this topic is open to all RMweb members to comment on, be it positive or otherwise.

I’m surprised that nobody else yet has made a comment, in view of the amount of track collected at ExpoEM.
The track is advertised as ‘per yard length’, a yard is approx., 914mm - I shall use metric measurements from now on. The track is actually 840mm long with a further 74mm of rail at the ends, which according to an article from the EMGS in Model Railway Journal (MRJ) No, 269 is to allow enough rail to be available still within the track bases for trimming when the track is curved, I got the length of track down to a 190mm radius (7.5”) before the rail length matched the bases. As I have a minimum of 1,200mm (4’) and normally 2,120mm (6’) radii, I would have appreciated some further sleepers.
SHarris on 8/1/2019 made the comment that ‘The remaining 75mm or so is left bare - consider that extra 3" a bonus for the construction of checkrails and suchlike’. A bit tongue in cheek I think.
An irony for me is that most of my baseboards are a standard 912mm long; this is so they can be packed face to face for exhibitions etc., and individually, can easily be handled by myself at home.  Thus a 914mm length of track would have been useful, I am extending the layout ‘Penlan’ into a roundy-roundy and there are a number of 912mm long boards that will have straight track on them as a scenic fiddle yard, probably 36 x 914mm (-2mm) lengths.
I can understand why the EMGS has gone for 2.5  60’ bases.  The reasons have been commented on ad nauseam in this topic already.

I am advised that the EMGS has not listed the bases as a separate item in their lists (yet), to enable those who wish to keep the full length of rail as a ‘yard’ length of track, to do so, perhaps this could be considered, even if it means those who have bought track have to prove they require one ‘half’ track base for each length they’ve purchased.
The rail itself I assume is the standard Peco BH rail, it’s symmetrical, e.g. the head and toe are the same size, which is understandable if costs are to be kept down, though it’s not the same as the BH rail with a large head, small toe available for last 50+ years through the Society or others.
The overall height of the track is 4mm, which is 0.5mm more than most of the other options available such as ply/rivet/rail, ply/C&L chairs/rail, copperclad/rail and some of the other track available at approx., 3.5mm, though Scaleway ( I have bits of) is only 3.2mm high.
The PECO sleepers and ties are thicker – more ballast needed – For me, the scoring of texture on the sleepers is perhaps a little overdone, but I’m sure others will welcome it.
There is a nice, though subtle representation of the keys in the (3 bolt) chairs, at least they look knocked in, as opposed to say the C&L chairs, where just some of the key seems to be going into the chair.
Overall, presumably the purpose is to encourage people to become EM modelers and join the Society and this has been met.  I wish the Society every success.
I have been an EM modeler since 1962, was a Member for many years and at one time edited the West Midlands EMGauge Area Group Newsletter etc.; I’m not an armchair modeller, though well past three score years and ten.  

 

 

Penland

 

Thank you for a very well rounded and thoughtful report on the new track. 

 

At Railex over the weekend C&L had test shots of their 00 gauge flexitrack which will be supplied in 1 meter lengths, the sleepers are in half 60 foot panels, with keys (something I think neither Peco or the EM gauge society do) and available in either a main line (keys all facing the same way) or Branch line (keys alternating), the sleepers are a bit thicker 1.5 mm than his currant range. What this got to do with EM, well they also had pre-production samples of both EM and P4 flexitrack which Phil hopes to bring intro production in the future (hopefully there will be an announcement in the Scalefour Mag in the next month or so. Phil is happy to supply track (as he does now) to both members and non members of these societies.

 

I will upload photos in the C&L section

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abergwaun said:

Bringing the politics of EM/P4/S4 and their various complications into a discussion on track heights seems a little perverse. The point clearly made by Penlan was that the new EM gauge track, and presumably the points as well, are a different height to the other commercially available track systems. As a result getting the top of the rail level, and incase the point is clouded by the politics, that’s what your stock runs on, means that some careful packing will be required somewhere. So it’s not a universal system.

Where does politics come into it? My reference was simply to the old, irrelevant shibboleths that are trotted out.

 

Presumably the matching points will be to the same standards, so creating the beginning of a "Universal", ready to use system for EM. If you want to mix and match different systems, i.e. EMGS/Peco, C&L, handbuilt, etc. then that will cause difficulties, but so would mixing different Peco code rails.  However, what the EMGS has presumably set out to do is provide  ready to use track units to give those who want to try EM instead of 00 with the minimum of difficulty.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jol

 

I think the mixing of systems (different thicknesses of sleeper/timber) affect all gauges and perhaps scales. Clearly initially the K&L/C&L system was designed to be compatible with the early ply and rivet system, in fact if you go back to the early Peco products which were using card sleepers and timbers.  Peco and the main RTR manufacturers settled for a more robust track standard with thicker more durable sleepers & timbers.

 

For whatever reason the more scale end has tended to keep with thinner sleepers and timbers, though for some time various thicknesses of materials have crept in. Plastic performs/ is more stable when its thicker and ply is now offered in thicker (1.5 mm) pieces now less people are using the rivet method. I think I am correct in thinking Peco has reduced the thickness of the timbers and sleepers in its Bullhead range and Exactoscale for sometime now has been constant in using 1,5 mm thick timbers and sleepers, C&L are now increasing the thickness of their RTR track to 1.5 mm in 00 gauge and the new proposed EM & P4 ranges will be the same so perhaps we now are evolving in to a period when ranges are more compatible with each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thicker sleepers reduces the options for ballasting. With thin sleepers you can get away with glue first with ballast sprinkled on. With thicker sleepers you have to use the ballast first with glue applied by dropper or spray - it's a much slower method.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well time has passed and I've had other things to do.
The two lengths of track I was asked to comment on have now been returned to their owner.
However I have a few notes to hand. 
The rail in the sleeper chairs moves quite easily, which means that if you are used to other longstanding versions of EM 'flexitrack', when you curve the Peco track, it it doesn't stay like that, it's a little bit floppy - Now this may be due to the way I work, in that I place the track on a trackbed and ease it to a required curve, then lift it off and set about painting the rail sides etc., and the 'set' curve is retained more or (little) less, The painting normally 'sets' the rail to the chairs (clogs up any movement), I then remove the ties/tags between the sleepers, and thus when I come to lay the track - stick it down - it requires very little curve adjustment, touching up or tweaking of sleepers.  This was not the case with the Peco, plenty of movement, frustrating for me.
When I received the track originally, something seemed not to fit my illusion as to what the track should look like, it was only when I laid it next to a piece of 'other' old flexitrack, I realised the sleepers are closer together, in fact they ended up as 11 Peco to 10 other, and if I compared it with some ply and rivet set out to LNWR spacings even more out of sequence.
So I thought I would check sleeper spacing, the Peco equates to approx. 25" c/c, the other 'flexitrack' to approx. 28" c/c.
Just my luck the LNWR is 30" on their 60' sections, as indeed it is on the GWR 44' 6" sections (Info., from Iain Rice's 'Finescale Track....').  The Ply and Rivet on my layout is 30" c/c, details from 'LNWR Liveries', laid by John Degg & Bill Wood, 30 years ago - I use to have a sleeper spacing template, but that's been mis-laid, somewhere, though I still have the double track spacing templates.
So as mentioned a few posts ago, in another posting, we should take into account who the track is aimed at, probably not old hands, into pre-grouping, like me, again, I wish the Society well, and a growing membership.

 

Edited by Penlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/05/2019 at 16:06, hayfield said:

Jol

 

I think the mixing of systems (different thicknesses of sleeper/timber) affect all gauges and perhaps scales. Clearly initially the K&L/C&L system was designed to be compatible with the early ply and rivet system, in fact if you go back to the early Peco products which were using card sleepers and timbers.  Peco and the main RTR manufacturers settled for a more robust track standard with thicker more durable sleepers & timbers.

 

For whatever reason the more scale end has tended to keep with thinner sleepers and timbers, though for some time various thicknesses of materials have crept in. Plastic performs/ is more stable when its thicker and ply is now offered in thicker (1.5 mm) pieces now less people are using the rivet method. I think I am correct in thinking Peco has reduced the thickness of the timbers and sleepers in its Bullhead range and Exactoscale for sometime now has been constant in using 1,5 mm thick timbers and sleepers, C&L are now increasing the thickness of their RTR track to 1.5 mm in 00 gauge and the new proposed EM & P4 ranges will be the same so perhaps we now are evolving in to a period when ranges are more compatible with each other

The original K&L sleepers were thick sleepers with holes one side and slots the other to take chairs with pips on the bottom. They only changed when Alan Gibson got involeved in selling them and were then oggered in 2 thicknesses without hte holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Penlan said:

So I thought I would check sleeper spacing, the Peco equates to approx. 25" c/c, the other 'flexitrack' to approx. 28" c/c.
Just my luck the LNWR is 30" on their 60' sections, as indeed it is on the GWR 44' 6" sections (Info., from Iain Rice's 'Finescale Track....')

 

Hi Sandy,

 

For the BR bullhead era, the three standard spacings for jointed bullhead track are 24, 25, and 26 sleepers per 60ft rail length, depending on curve radius and the nature of the ground.

 

24 sleepers per 60ft rail (average spacing 30") is for straight track, and down to 40 chains radius, on firm ground. 40 chains =  35ft radius in EM.

 

25 sleepers per 60ft rail (average spacing 28.8") is for curves between 40 chains and 20 chains radius, and also for straight track on soft ground, in tunnels, and under water troughs. 20 chains = 17ft radius in EM.

 

26 sleepers per 60ft rail (average spacing 27.7") is for curves below 20 chains radius = 17ft radius in EM.

 

You can see therefore that the vast majority of model curved track should have 26 sleepers per 60ft length.

 

The actual spacing is not constant and varies within the rail length, the spacings being closer at each end and wider in the middle. Here is the table from BRT3 showing the full details:

 

2_051608_420000000.png

 

I don't know which spacing the EMGS have chosen (or C&L for their new 00/EM/P4 tracks), but I imagine the majority of users will be modelling the post-grouping era. If you are measuring the spacing you need to average over the 60ft length (or just count the sleepers).

 

If it was my decision I would probably have settled on 25 sleepers per 60ft.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Informative/Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Martin, I appreciate that data.
Yes I've come to that conclusion too, for post grouping.
The person who sent me the samples for comments* is definatly pre-grouping, as indeed I am, and I was looking at it from that angle, perhaps I should have made that obvious.
* I am building nearly 30 points for their new (pre-grouping) layout,

and they have been thinking/looking at what track to use.
Hopefully the advertising for the product will clarify the era in the future.
I seem to recall a few years ago on RMweb, there was a survey of period interests,

I think pre-grouping came out at 3%, I'm definatly in the minority.
BTW - I seem to one of the few people on RMweb who has actually handled the Peco EM product as an end-user.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Sandy,

 

For the BR bullhead era, the three standard spacings for jointed bullhead track are 24, 25, and 26 sleepers per 60ft rail length, depending on curve radius and the nature of the ground.

 

24 sleepers per 60ft rail (average spacing 30") is for straight track, and down to 40 chains radius, on firm ground. 40 chains =  35ft radius in EM.

 

25 sleepers per 60ft rail (average spacing 28.8") is for curves between 40 chains and 20 chains radius, and also for straight track on soft ground, in tunnels, and under water troughs. 20 chains = 17ft radius in EM.

 

26 sleepers per 60ft rail (average spacing 27.7") is for curves below 20 chains radius = 17ft radius in EM.

 

You can see therefore that the vast majority of model curved track should have 26 sleepers per 60ft length.

 

The actual spacing is not constant and varies within the rail length, the spacings being closer at each end and wider in the middle. Here is the table from BRT3 showing the full details:

 

http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/2/original/2_051608_420000000.png

 

I don't know which spacing the EMGS have chosen (or C&L for their new 00/EM/P4 tracks), but I imagine the majority of users will be modelling the post-grouping era. If you are measuring the spacing you need to average over the 60ft length (or just count the sleepers).

 

If it was my decision I would probably have settled on 25 sleepers per 60ft.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

The C&L track has 24 sleepers per panel, 00 gauge out very soon, no decision on the EM or P4 track yet

 

716.jpeg.e5c8aa71d4c73e5e2bbd7cb0bc1805cb.jpeg

 The grey items are 3D test prints in both EM & P4 gauges and come with the added bonus of keys in both single and double track formations

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will ask again, 
Is there anybody on here who has bought the new track.
I have a query re. gauge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Can anybody confirm a few details about the EMGS/Peco RTL EM track please ? I gave up after reading 4 pages of the thread.......

 

What is the head width of the rails ?

Can you join the rails to C&L type BH code 75 rail with scale type fishplates ?

I understand the chairs are 3 bolt. Correct ?

The dimensions of the sleepers on plain track ( Width x Length x depth ) ?

What proportion of the height of the sleepers has the joining web attached to it ( or in reverse )how much ballast depth needs to be used to cover the web ?

Is the flexitrack being supplied with spare rail at the ends of the sleepered sections as I read above ? Surely it can't be labelled as 'yard lengths' unless all of it is usable.

 

Whatever the answers to the above Peco/EMGS are to be given a slap on the back for bringing this out.

 

Rob

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the head width of the rails ?  0.90mm, The head is the same as the toe, the rail profile is symmetrical.

Can you join the rails to C&L type BH code 75 rail with scale type fishplates

I've used Peco 'N' gauge fishplates, little bit loose on the Peco EM track?

I understand the chairs are 3 bolt. Correct ? Yes - see photo below.

The dimensions of the sleepers on plain track ( Width x Length x depth ) ?

3.45mm, 34.12mm and 1.67mm

What proportion of the height of the sleepers has the joining web attached to it ( or in reverse )how much ballast depth needs to be used to cover the web ?

The web is 1.18mm thick, other makes webs tend to be around 0.50mm thick.

Is the flexitrack being supplied with spare rail at the ends of the sleepered sections as I read above ?

YES, the RAIL length is 36", the TRACK length is three and a half 60' sleeper bases, which leaves you approx., 3" of rail left over - All the track I had has been laid now, ready for an exhibition, so I can't check the exact lengths etc.,
Be mindful the sleeper spacing is closer, not the 30" as per pre-grouping

Surely it can't be labelled as 'yard lengths' unless all of it is usable - I agree.

 

Whatever the answers to the above Peco/EMGS are to be given a slap on the back for bringing this out.
Not so sure, because once the track's been glued down with, say, PVA, there seems to be problems with the gauge.  I advised the EMGS through a private message on their Facebook page of the problem(s) on 15th July, with a photo (as they requested) on the 17th July.  I became aware of the problem when testing for smooth running of some stock on a 52" radius curve, the Gibson EM wheels (B/B's at 16.5mm) where riding up on the rails.  Also when I came to lay a piece of track up to a point which had been checked at 18.2mm gauge, the Peco EM was narrower. 
Hence my posting above on July 12th looking for somebody via a private message to contact me so we could compare notes.
The EMGS 'conversations' were courteous etc., but I've had no response from them since. 

The photo below (on a 72" radius curve) may stimulate a response here. Note: the web had been cut away to get a wider sleeper spacing, but similar vernier readings are obtained from straight track complete with webs.
The EMGS has stated on it's Facebook page the track (not points) is now available, presumably by post, to Members.
 

Gauge on 72 rad curve.jpg

Edited by Penlan
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.