Jump to content

CloggyDog

EMGS commissions Peco for RTR EM Gauge bullhead track/turnouts

Recommended Posts

I rarely use roller type gauges now. I got some flat plate types from the EMGS some time ago. Being a rectangular shape, they automatically give slight gauge widening in curves. One of the rectangles has a slot cut in one end so it will sit over rails in pointwork. I then use brass or nickel silver section, either 1.00mm wide for standard or 0.8mm for the EMSF or Manchester standard to set the check gaps. These are chemically blackened so they don't solder with the flux I use and I have several of each, which allows a crossing nose to be built up one rail at a time.

 

I get no problem using these with any type of rail and sleepers.

 

When I started doing a bit of O gauge I persuaded a friend to mill me some similar gauges for 31.5mm and use blackened nickel silver section for a 1.5mm check gap and they are helping me produce good results too.

Share this post


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

As for gauges you are spot on, yes in the past C&L sold gauges where the 00 ones were to DOGA fine, BUT that was in the past. This year Phil has had his gauges redesigned, firstly to ensure (as you would expect) they work perfectly with chaired track (allows the rail head to rotate in the gauge), and at the same time changing the 00 gauges to 00-BF 

 

Hi John,

 

That's great. I see they are called "Classic Check Rails" option on the C&L gauge order page. Which version of the gauges are included in the turnout kits? If the "Classic" gauges are included it must follow that the pre-assembled crossings in the turnout kits now have 1.25mm "classic" flangeways to match? I haven't seen any announcement about that.

 

Currently the crossings in the range are shown as 1.0mm flangeways (i.e. labelled as 00/EM), meaning the only sensible choice for 00 modellers is to build them as 00-SF. Are the kits available with 00-SF gauges? Is there any proper explanation of all this on the C&L web site? I can't see any.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

21 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi John,

 

That's great. I see they are called "Classic Check Rails" option on the C&L gauge order page. Which version of the gauges are included in the turnout kits? If the "Classic" gauges are included it must follow that the pre-assembled crossings in the turnout kits now have 1.25mm "classic" flangeways to match? I haven't seen any announcement about that.

 

Currently the crossings in the range are shown as 1.0mm flangeways (i.e. labelled as 00/EM), meaning the only sensible choice for 00 modellers is to build them as 00-SF. Are the kits available with 00-SF gauges? Is there any proper explanation of all this on the C&L web site? I can't see any.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

Martin

 

I see he has both on the website, no good phoning him either today or Monday as he is at Taunton over the weekend. I will chat with him over the descriptions of both. It is my understanding that the GOGA fine are to be phased out

 

The kits are made up to order/request (at shows), The chairs, timbers and fishplates are pre-packed, plan, rail, common crossings, switch rails and gauges are added if required to the customers requirements. A basic kit is a plastic bag + rails,

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi,

I would just like to add a couple of points further to the excellent advice of both Tony and Martin. 

 

Firstly when I discussed back to backs with Mike Sharman soon after he started making his wheelsets he would not specify a back to back measurement for his wheels.  Instead he explained his own process for determining the correct back to back for any wheel on any gauge with the following illustration which I have reproduced for EM (18.2) gauge.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/25630570_BacktoBackVsGauge.JPG.75b510bbad0322f35e7bc5aed8c7543b.JPG

 

As can be seen from the illustration the critical elements are that the back to back must be greater than the check gauge (i.e. greater than 16.4mm in EM) otherwise the wheels will bind in the check rails.  Additionally the back to back must be sufficiently narrow as to guide the flange smoothly into the V's flangeway.  Too wide and the flange will hit the nose of the 'V'.  There will be more or less 'wiggle room' depending upon the thickness of the flanges but it is best to keep the back to back as wide as possible to reduce the tendency of the vehicle to 'crab' which increases the risk of buffer locking. 

 

From my experience of a number of RTR locomotives that I have converted to EM for friends I can confirm that there is considerable variation in the flange thicknesses for different models and not all are immediately suitable for re-gauging.  I have regularly found RTR flanges of 1mm thickness or more which would if unmodified bind and jump in the flangeways. Fortunately I have a lathe and have been able to thin down such flanges by skimming the backs of the wheels, so far with complete success.  I am currently converting a Heljan 47xx for myself and have performed the same modification on the wheels plus a new set of wider axles to suit.

 

Martin's comment that the critical measurement is the check gauge rather than the track gauge was a light bulb moment for me.  Deviate from this and you are no longer modelling in EM as the Society would understand it.

 

Regards,

Frank  

 

Back to Back Vs Gauge.PDF 26.78 kB · 9 downloads Back to Back Vs Gauge.PDF 26.78 kB · 8 downloads

 

Should the '16.2mm' measurement shown in the diagram be the 16.4mm referred to the text?

Share this post


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

 

Should the '16.2mm' measurement shown in the diagram be the 16.4mm referred to the text?

 

For standard EM:

 

The check span is 16.2mm

The check gauge is 17.2mm

 

There is no 16.4mm dimension in the track. 16.4mm is the back-to-back dimension for RTR type wheels (NMRA RP25/110 profile).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I thought I had understood! But the drawing appears to show a back to back of 16.2mm, even though the arrows are in a different place - because there is no gap between the back of the wheels and the check rails?

Share this post


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

 

Hi Dave,

 

I don't know where board members come into it. It's the technical people you need to talk to, perhaps the guy on the CAD system at Peco?

 

By all means tighten up the EM dimensions, but do it properly. That means leaving the check rails where they are at 17.2mm check gauge, and tightening in the stock rails, i.e. reducing the track gauge, not "still 18.2mm". That way, with the critical check gauge unchanged, all the back-to-backs remain the same. so the wheels are unchanged and you can mix the new standard with the old on the same layout.

 

Notice that the EM-SF standard which I mentioned does exactly that, with the check gauge still at 17.2mm and no need to change wheels. The check gauge is far and away the most important dimension, far more than minor tweaks to the track gauge, which is the least important dimension.

 

The reason it is so important to give each standard its own name is to avoid confusing beginners. If someone is starting in standard EM and asks what back-to-back dimensions to use, there is no point in asking you what back-to-backs you use because you are not using standard EM. He needs to find someone who IS using standard EM, and ask them. On the other hand, if he sees your trains running well, you might persuade him to adopt your EM-DAVE standards instead of standard EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Hi Martyn, this was before the EMGS/PECO track collaboration. The EMGS board had been approached by a few groups to look at the EM specs again in the light of modern wheels which were finer than the Romford type wheels of old, it was all reported in the EMGS newsletters at the time.

I had done my experiments and conclusions many years ago long before all this 'SF' stuff and I was very happy with the running that it produced. More recently I was contacted by someone in one of the groups to say they had come to similar conclusions and they had approached the board who did look at the specs but decided not to change anything probably because of the then confidential talks with PECO.

Incidently if one uses a 'block' B2B with Ultrascale loco wheels you get a wider B2B than 16.5 this is because the tyre rear tapers and at the effective check point on the flange rear it is something like 16.65mm and that's where I got it from so I'm sure there are more than a few locos running around with Ultrascales set at 16.65 B2B and people don't realise.  As I say it works for me and a few others who have larger layouts.

 

Cheers,

Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pteremy said:

That is what I thought I had understood! But the drawing appears to show a back to back of 16.2mm, even though the arrows are in a different place - because there is no gap between the back of the wheels and the check rails?

 

It's not my drawing, but I have amended it:

 

em_check_gauge.png.83953bd24c9adf6e3d9304a8e4446591.png

 

The most important dimension in any track is the check gauge.

 

Martin.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, davefrk said:

they had approached the board who did look at the specs but decided not to change anything

 

Quite right too. There is no point whatsoever in having something called standard EM if you then go and change it. It just sows endless confusion for years to come.

 

But it is not ideal with modern wheels. What is needed is an optional new finer standard called something else. It can be called anything you like, nut not plain EM.

 

I suggest the EM-SF standard is already being used by a few modellers, with the huge advantage that the check gauge is the same 17.2mm as standard EM. So wheels are interchangeable, running on either with the same back-to-backs, and pointwork to EM-SF can be mixed with standard EM on the same layout.

 

The EMGS might like to consider adding it to their docs.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Share this post


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

 

For standard EM:

 

The check span is 16.2mm

The check gauge is 17.2mm

 

There is no 16.4mm dimension in the track. 16.4mm is the back-to-back dimension for RTR type wheels (NMRA RP25/110 profile).

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Oops!

 

yes of course.  It’s me age you know.  I’ll try to correct it.

Apologies to all,

 

Frank

Share this post


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

 

Quite right too. There is no point whatsoever in having something called standard EM if you then go and change it. It just sows endless confusion for years to come.

 

But it is not ideal with modern wheels. What is needed is an optional new finer standard called something else. It can be called anything you like, nut not plain EM.

 

I suggest the EM-SF standard is already being used by a few modellers, with the huge advantage that the check gauge is the same 17.2mm as standard EM. So wheels are interchangeable, running on either with the same back-to-backs, and pointwork to EM-SF can be mixed with standard EM on the same layout.

 

The EMGS might like to consider adding it to their docs.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

 

I think you are spot on in that clarity is needed, the Society are to be commended firstly in bringing in a product (flexitrack) which is much improved on what has been available to date (thicker track base and with gapped webbing). With the expectation of RTR turnouts I assume many more will convert to EM gauge standards. The last thing we require is altering the standards. Don't forget many will be tempted to do simple wheel conversions to reduce costs as they migrate from 00 gauge to EM 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... Only joking! Some interesting info in this thread! 

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.