Jump to content

CloggyDog

EMGS commissions Peco for RTR EM Gauge bullhead track/turnouts

Recommended Posts

This does highlight a couple of issues. In one way to be fair to manufacturers they have to be thick skinned, constructive criticism should be welcomed and unwarranted comments should be expected. I have a couple of trader friends who just ignore this site, but a few others who see it a a place where they can interact with their customers and even successfully promote their business. Personally (and not pointing fingers) I think some societies would benefit in promoting themselves more on this platform , as there is a massive target audience.

 

The initial issue was apparently raised and dealt with in a Facebook group, so those of us who are not involved in this group were unaware of its findings/conclusions, Perhaps there is a lesson about communication to be learnt. I think when someone states they are a beginner, as a forum we should be supportive and encourage them. On the plus side this has led to some really useful information about the use and limitations of digital callipers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 17/10/2019 at 07:27, blueeighties said:

I don't think a spell checker  would go amiss here.

not a particularly constructive response. One of the reasons I don't contribute to this forum on these sort of topics. Other forums I am on don't seem to have this problem and I contribute to them

As an EM modeller I have been following this particular topic and have been disappointed by some of the negative posts 

 

oh and by the way - check your grammar!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, johnwragg said:

One of the reasons I don't contribute to this forum on these sort of topics.

 

Ahem!

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an independent observer with no axe to grind, it was my rolling stock that was tried at Wells show. I picked a wagon or two at random and they ran very smoothly the the newly arrived points. I selected a long wheelbase 4 wheeler as likely to be a worst case and there was no problem at all.

 

I probably wouldn't use the track or points on the scenic part of a layout as I model pregrouping and like to model the correct sleeper arrangements for the company I am modelling but I would certainly use the Peco/EMGS products in a fiddle yard or off scene section with total confidence.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2019 at 07:27, blueeighties said:

I don't think a spell checker  would go amiss here.

 

I don't think a PM from yourself to Simon would go amiss here.

Not everyone is, to be polite, as word perfect as you seem to think you are.

 

Mike.

Share this post


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

not a particularly constructive response. One of the reasons I don't contribute to this forum on these sort of topics. Other forums I am on don't seem to have this problem and I contribute to them

As an EM modeller I have been following this particular topic and have been disappointed by some of the negative posts 

 

oh and by the way - check your grammar!!

 

John

 

Part of the issue here was a lack of communication on this thread for the benefit of the Society Members who are not party to a Facebook group and those who either model in EM gauge or are just interested in track developments

 

Secondly a RMweb member had a related query which was raised on this thread, thankfully a very helpful member took the time (to the benefit of many others) to explain the issue was more likely down to the shortcomings of the digital calliper rather than the track

 

In hindsight this whole episode could have simply been cleared up with a short informative statement, instead of a long winded rant.

 

As a society member was I wrong to be concerned about the suitability of the track owing to a report of a potential issue?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

John

 

Part of the issue here was a lack of communication on this thread for the benefit of the Society Members who are not party to a Facebook group and those who either model in EM gauge or are just interested in track developments

 

Secondly a RMweb member had a related query which was raised on this thread, thankfully a very helpful member took the time (to the benefit of many others) to explain the issue was more likely down to the shortcomings of the digital calliper rather than the track

 

In hindsight this whole episode could have simply been cleared up with a short informative statement, instead of a long winded rant.

 

As a society member was I wrong to be concerned about the suitability of the track owing to a report of a potential issue?

 

 

 

The real issue was after being told there wasn’t an issue with the track that a NON EM member (use to be one but isn’t anymore) decided to carry the matter on further in a public place. 
 

Could the reply have been a shorter one, possibly but did I feel it needed to be said/posted.......yes. 
 

If people wanted to know more about the track then they could have looked at the website where most of the info has been posted. 


If I had wanted to know if there was an issue I personally would have contacted the EMGS direct to enquire about any possible issue but perhaps that’s me.
 

 

  • Friendly/supportive 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mr.S.corn78 said:

 

The real issue was after being told there wasn’t an issue with the track that a NON EM member (use to be one but isn’t anymore) decided to carry the matter on further in a public place. 
 

Could the reply have been a shorter one, possibly but did I feel it needed to be said/posted.......yes. 
 

If people wanted to know more about the track then they could have looked at the website where most of the info has been posted. 


If I had wanted to know if there was an issue I personally would have contacted the EMGS direct to enquire about any possible issue but perhaps that’s me.
 

 

 

 

If you are talking about me please get your facts right before going off on one. 

 

Simply after Peco confirmed there was not an issue with the track, this information should have been relayed those who were interested in this thread (both society members and non members) . A simply reply is all that was needed and a golden opportunity to promote both the quality of the product and Societies handing of the query. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

 

If you are talking about me please get your facts right before going off on one. 

 

Simply after Peco confirmed there was not an issue with the track, this information should have been relayed those who were interested in this thread (both society members and non members) . A simply reply is all that was needed and a golden opportunity to promote both the quality of the product and Societies handing of the query. 

 

 

 

As far as I can see there has been a lot of information passed on through this thread and other communication streams. Shame this sort of info wasn't available to people who bought and laid C&L OO track when it had manufacturing faults. Some of us found out about that the hard way!

Baz

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

 

If you are talking about me please get your facts right before going off on one. 

 

Simply after Peco confirmed there was not an issue with the track, this information should have been relayed those who were interested in this thread (both society members and non members) . A simply reply is all that was needed and a golden opportunity to promote both the quality of the product and Societies handing of the query. 

 

 

 


I can see this getting tit for tact so this will be my final post on the matter.

 

Did I say it was you??? No as you have previously stated that you are a member. Please read what I’ve posted.

 

As I said before the matter was CLOSED after the info came from Peco to the message via Facebook. If that person hadn’t posted the issue here you wouldn’t have been any wiser about it and to be honest after the matter was closed there it shouldn’t have been reopened.

 

Sorry if this doesn’t sit right but having worked for multi national companies if a matter has been dealt with it is closed and not reopened else where because the answer wasn’t what the person wanted to hear. 
 

Thanks and happy modelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr.S.corn78 said:


I can see this getting tit for tact so this will be my final post on the matter.

 

Did I say it was you??? No as you have previously stated that you are a member. Please read what I’ve posted.

 

As I said before the matter was CLOSED after the info came from Peco to the message via Facebook. If that person hadn’t posted the issue here you wouldn’t have been any wiser about it and to be honest after the matter was closed there it shouldn’t have been reopened.

 

Sorry if this doesn’t sit right but having worked for multi national companies if a matter has been dealt with it is closed and not reopened else where because the answer wasn’t what the person wanted to hear. 
 

Thanks and happy modelling

I don't have any real interest in this thread other than the content is drawing me in.

 

But I think you are taking this whole matter far too personally and the responses are doing neither yourself or the EMGS any favours.

 

Take a step back, just keep to the facts - there is nothing wrong with the track and not get into the who said what part of it and whether or not they are members of the EMGS.

 

Simply, this thread might draw in other people who may be thinking of being a member because of this new Peco track,  is this how you want them to see the EMGS portrayed, it would certainly put me off.

  • Agree 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr.S.corn78 said:

 

The real issue was after being told there wasn’t an issue with the track that a NON EM member (use to be one but isn’t anymore) decided to carry the matter on further in a public place. 
 

Could the reply have been a shorter one, possibly but did I feel it needed to be said/posted.......yes. 
 

If people wanted to know more about the track then they could have looked at the website where most of the info has been posted. 


If I had wanted to know if there was an issue I personally would have contacted the EMGS direct to enquire about any possible issue but perhaps that’s me.

I've been sitting on the outside on this thread for a long time, mainly due to the fear of receiving an aggressive response for asking a question, so I thank those other braver souls for asking.

 

I'm not on Facebook, never have been and don't intend to. (Not old dinosaur, I'm reasonably tech savvy, just appreciate my privacy.) So questions here and answered on Facebook will never help me.

 

I was about to build a new layout last year, and got really interested in the EMGS commissioned track, thought it might be the ideal solution for me. After doing a lot of research, the intention was to join the EMGS and benefit from their wisdom, knowledge and tap into their advice. However, reading some of the snarly responses here, I decided it's not worth it.

 

All EMGS members were non-EMGS members at some stage. It is by seeing how a group / society / club respond to strangers and their questions (some questions good, some questions very basic and answered a multitude of times, some questions misguided, but I'm sure most are genuine in their own right), that dictates whether you get a new member to join or not.

 

32 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Simply, this thread might draw in other people who may be thinking of being a member because of this new Peco track,  is this how you want them to see the EMGS portrayed, it would certainly put me off.

 

It did me.

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I don't have any real interest in this thread other than the content is drawing me in.

 

But I think you are taking this whole matter far too personally and the responses are doing neither yourself or the EMGS any favours.

 

Take a step back, just keep to the facts - there is nothing wrong with the track and not get into the who said what part of it and whether or not they are members of the EMGS.

 

Simply, this thread might draw in other people who may be thinking of being a member because of this new Peco track,  is this how you want them to see the EMGS portrayed, it would certainly put me off.

 

Thankfully after two separate reports about possible issues with the track, the fact that both the Society and Peco took the first issue seriously, double checked that the track and confirmed it meets the required standards, concluding the first issue was possibly due to modifications by the user, Two lines job done

 

The second issue was quickly and far less painlessly cleared up by the explanation of the limitations of the measuring tool used, which as it happens has added additional beneficial knowledge to users of these tools.

 

To their credit both the Society and Peco did take the first issue seriously, finding the Product was not at fault. Like me I am certain others were completely unaware of any hidden agendas, but when then there is a query please give us have an answer. Especially when there is a good news story, please share it positively. Its free publicity !!! 

 

Thank you for those from the society for their replies

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first of all I am very grateful to all of you that have contributed to this thread (Despite the storm I may have induced! Lol!) because as a newcomer to EM gauge I have gleaned 3 important things, 1) The track is fine! 2) Don't trust some EM brass roller gauges, although the ones I have may be OK, not sure on that one yet! And 3) Handy hints on using my digital calipers. 

I am not put off at all from EM gauge and I am very much looking forward to trying a small project once I receive the 2 turnouts I have pre ordered...... As for the whole box of flexi track I have it'll probably last me a long time lol! My main permanent shed layout is in OO code 75 bullhead (Peco) so my intention on the EM gauge side of things will only be small projects like scenic shunting puzzles, working yard scenes etc and hopefully will get better as I build up experience then maybe later on in life create a larger EM layout but I'm just going to quietly get on with it and have fun whilst pestering the rest of you with silly questions! I do hope I may eventually be able to contribute in some way too!

 

Best wishes, 

 

Jim.. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeepy said:

Well, first of all I am very grateful to all of you that have contributed to this thread (Despite the storm I may have induced! Lol!) because as a newcomer to EM gauge I have gleaned 3 important things, 1) The track is fine! 2) Don't trust some EM brass roller gauges, although the ones I have may be OK, not sure on that one yet! And 3) Handy hints on using my digital calipers. 

I am not put off at all from EM gauge and I am very much looking forward to trying a small project once I receive the 2 turnouts I have pre ordered...... As for the whole box of flexi track I have it'll probably last me a long time lol! My main permanent shed layout is in OO code 75 bullhead (Peco) so my intention on the EM gauge side of things will only be small projects like scenic shunting puzzles, working yard scenes etc and hopefully will get better as I build up experience then maybe later on in life create a larger EM layout but I'm just going to quietly get on with it and have fun whilst pestering the rest of you with silly questions! I do hope I may eventually be able to contribute in some way too!

 

Best wishes, 

 

Jim.. 

happy modelling, you might need the rest after this thread farrago!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeepy said:

Well, first of all I am very grateful to all of you that have contributed to this thread (Despite the storm I may have induced! Lol!) because as a newcomer to EM gauge I have gleaned 3 important things, 1) The track is fine! 2) Don't trust some EM brass roller gauges, although the ones I have may be OK, not sure on that one yet! And 3) Handy hints on using my digital calipers. 

I am not put off at all from EM gauge and I am very much looking forward to trying a small project once I receive the 2 turnouts I have pre ordered...... As for the whole box of flexi track I have it'll probably last me a long time lol! My main permanent shed layout is in OO code 75 bullhead (Peco) so my intention on the EM gauge side of things will only be small projects like scenic shunting puzzles, working yard scenes etc and hopefully will get better as I build up experience then maybe later on in life create a larger EM layout but I'm just going to quietly get on with it and have fun whilst pestering the rest of you with silly questions! I do hope I may eventually be able to contribute in some way too!

 

Best wishes, 

 

Jim.. 

 

 

Jim

 

Firstly great that you are not put off, there is nothing wrong with asking a question and as you have said a lot of us have learnt how not to use a digital calliper, so thanks for asking the question

 

As for roller gauges they fall into two or more groups. Using either the ply and rivet or copperclad construction in building track the rail is held upwards at 90 degrees, most roller gauges seen to have been designed for this use, different makes may differ slightly but are perfectly OK providing they fall within the set standard for the gauge and the in built tollarances of said standard

 

If using plastic chairs from either C&L or Exactoscale, the chairs hold the rail at a cant, therefore the gauge needs to allow the head to rotate in the slot. If the slots are either too deep and or too narrow the rail is held too upright, once the gauge is removed the chairs relax back into position and gauge narrowing occurs. Certainly the new batch of C&L roller gauges were designed with this in mind, as were the latter style of Exactoscale gauges for P4. All other gauges (unless stating they are fine for use with plastic chairs) should be checked as being fine with plastic chairs. 

 

00 gauge in built tolerances should be fine with a bit of gauge narrowing, P4 on the other hand great care should be taken. I am not too certain how a slight bit of gauge narrowing affects EM gauge as it is a bit more forgiving than P4, could only affect tighter radii. In other threads with gauges with deeper slots it has been suggested to decrease the depth of the slots with some fine wire.

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's useful information about the cant in the rail, thank you........ I would like to have a go at some copper clad assembly at some stage so the gauges I have would more than likely be fine for that it seems, I've got a lot to learn! :read:

 

Best wishes

 

Jim.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

None of the following refers to any EMGS track, just whatever I've used in my modelling career. I'm just trying to put a light(er) hearted spin on EM modelling and show you don't have to get hung up on the minutiae of things.

 

My mint gauge won't go in some of my trackwork.

My three legged gauge won't fit in some of my curved trackwork.

The beermats I have used for crossing flangeways weren't always consistent.

My B to B gauges vary in widths and degrees of parallelness.

But funnily enough rolling stock stumbles along quite happily with no more derailments and disasters than anyone else.

 

Mike.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

None of the following refers to any EMGS track, just whatever I've used in my modelling career. I'm just trying to put a light(er) hearted spin on EM modelling and show you don't have to get hung up on the minutiae of things.

 

My mint gauge won't go in some of my trackwork.

My three legged gauge won't fit in some of my curved trackwork.

The beermats I have used for crossing flangeways weren't always consistent.

My B to B gauges vary in widths and degrees of parallelness.

But funnily enough rolling stock stumbles along quite happily with no more derailments and disasters than anyone else.

 

Mike.

 

Keep on fine tuning and you'll get there one day Mike.

 

Does recycled and reconstituted acquisitions count? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one of the most well known EM layout ever built is Buckingham. The gauge on that varied from 17.5 to 19.5mm. Some of the stock with modern narrow wheels dropped in on the widest bits, which I have now narrowed. Some of the wagons with ancient wide flanged wheels rides up a bit in the narrow bits. I have tinkered here and there but there are still big variations, which cause very few problems.

 

On balance, I would say that EM is very forgiving.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

None of the following refers to any EMGS track, just whatever I've used in my modelling career. I'm just trying to put a light(er) hearted spin on EM modelling and show you don't have to get hung up on the minutiae of things.

 

My mint gauge won't go in some of my trackwork.

My three legged gauge won't fit in some of my curved trackwork.

The beermats I have used for crossing flangeways weren't always consistent.

My B to B gauges vary in widths and degrees of parallelness.

But funnily enough rolling stock stumbles along quite happily with no more derailments and disasters than anyone else.

 

Mike.

 

 

 

Mike

 

I tend to buy gauges whenever I see them, taking the 18 mm (early gauge) most of those built to 18.2 gauge do vary slightly, but all sit within the tolerances set by the society

 

However using plastic chairs any gauge which holds the rail too tight and stops the head rotating MAY affect the gauge. The effects may only show a detrimental affect on performance on smaller radius curves. Just best be warned

 

I was given some very useful advice from a longstanding EM gauge modeller, use the same back to back gauge on all wheels. Then unsure all track gauges are compliant with the back to back gauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I was given some very useful advice from a longstanding EM gauge modeller, use the same back to back gauge on all wheels.

 

Hi John,

 

I can't comment on how useful that advice is, but it's just plain wrong. For all gauges, not just EM.

 

The dimension that remains constant is the check gauge. For EM that is 17.2mm. For 00-SF and 00-BF and 00-DOGA-Intermediate it is 15.2mm.

 

Then to find the optimum back-to-back for any wheels you subtract the flange thickness from the check gauge.

 

For RTR wheels the flange thickness is typically 0.8mm. so the optimum back-to-back for RTR wheels in EM is 17.2mm - 0.8mm = 16.4mm.

 

For Romford/Markits wheels the flange thickness is typically 0.7mm. so the optimum back-to-back for Romford/Markits wheels in EM is 17.2mm - 0.7mm = 16.5mm.

 

For kit wheels such as Ultrascale/Gibson/EMGS wheels the flange thickness is typically 0.6mm. so the optimum back-to-back for Ultrascale/Gibson/EMGS wheels in EM is 17.2mm - 0.6mm = 16.6mm.

 

Unfortunately the mantra that the back-to-back is a fixed dimension is so ingrained in the hobby that I doubt my posting the above information yet again is going to make any difference. For more info see: http://4-sf.uk (add 2.0mm for EM).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi John,

 

I can't comment on how useful that advice is, but it's just plain wrong. For all gauges, not just EM.

 

The dimension that remains constant is the check gauge. For EM that is 17.2mm. For 00-SF and 00-BF and 00-DOGA-Intermediate it is 15.2mm.

 

Then to find the optimum back-to-back for any wheels you subtract the flange thickness from the check gauge.

 

For RTR wheels the flange thickness is typically 0.8mm. so the optimum back-to-back for RTR wheels in EM is 17.2mm - 0.8mm = 16.4mm.

 

For Romford/Markits wheels the flange thickness is typically 0.7mm. so the optimum back-to-back for Romford/Markits wheels in EM is 17.2mm - 0.7mm = 16.5mm.

 

For kit wheels such as Ultrascale/Gibson/EMGS wheels the flange thickness is typically 0.6mm. so the optimum back-to-back for Ultrascale/Gibson/EMGS wheels in EM is 17.2mm - 0.6mm = 16.6mm.

 

Unfortunately the mantra that the back-to-back is a fixed dimension is so ingrained in the hobby that I doubt my posting the above information yet again is going to make any difference. For more info see: http://4-sf.uk (add 2.0mm for EM).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Spot on Martin. I wonder if the reason why people get poor running is because of a lack of understanding of the relationship between wheels, flanges, gauge, check rails etc.

 

It is such a shame that after all these years, manufacturers are still making wheels with different thickness flanges. If they made them all to a fixed standard, you could rely on a back to back gauge as a fixed dimension. Until that time (which will probably never happen) people need to be aware of the differences outlined by you. Mike Sharman used to recommend 16.7mm back to back for his wheels, which had thinner flanges than most. If you set opened up ready to run wheels at 16.7mm back to back, they don't fit between the rails!

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

The beermats I have used for crossing flangeways weren't always consistent.

 

Did you use them wet or dry?

  • Funny 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.