EMGS commissions Peco for RTR EM Gauge bullhead track/turnouts

[Enterprisingwestern]

Of course, as earth shattering as this announcement is, we still have to take into account the fact that a lot of rolling stock of all flavours isn't shake the box convertible, yet.

If modellers are/were being put off by the amount of effort/skill required to build track, then maybe those same people aren't confident enough they possess the skills to start hacking hundreds of pounds worth of stock about to obtain nirvana.

I wonder how much track will be bought by existing EM modellers to make life simple, and how this might impact the established track makers, maybe causing a drop in sales to the point where they don't have the money to develop the full panoply of crossings, fittings etc?

 

Mike.

[sharris]

Of course, as earth shattering as this announcement is, we still have to take into account the fact that a lot of rolling stock of all flavours isn't shake the box convertible, yet.

If modellers are/were being put off by the amount of effort/skill required to build track, then maybe those same people aren't confident enough they possess the skills to start hacking hundreds of pounds worth of stock about to obtain nirvana.

I wonder how much track will be bought by existing EM modellers to make life simple, and how this might impact the established track makers, maybe causing a drop in sales to the point where they don't have the money to develop the full panoply of crossings, fittings etc?

 

Mike.

 

I think this development will actually be of most benefit to the novice EM gauge builder, whose number I still consider myself among. When starting out in a gauge that is mostly not available over-the-counter (OK, so there's Marcway, which I'd never heard of when I started, and unless they sort their web address out, nobody else will!)  and having to build your own track and either build or modify chassis to EM gauge, there is some apprehension from the uncertainty of 'if it falls off the rails, did I get the track wrong, did I get the wheels wrong, did I get both wrong?'

 

By providing a known good track system (even if limited to plain track and 1 size of points), and I would trust a combination of the EMGS and PECO to produce something that's known good, it provides a 'bootstrap' from which to build on - if you build stock that runs on the EMGS/PECO track, you know the stock is right (or wrong if it falls off, and you can adjust it until it runs), and then you can go on to make your own track with different formations knowing that if your stock goes through it your handbuilt track is ok, and that if things fall off, it's your trackbuilding that you need to work on.

[ardbealach]

Of course, as earth shattering as this announcement is, we still have to take into account the fact that a lot of rolling stock of all flavours isn't shake the box convertible, yet.

If modellers are/were being put off by the amount of effort/skill required to build track, then maybe those same people aren't confident enough they possess the skills to start hacking hundreds of pounds worth of stock about to obtain nirvana.

I wonder how much track will be bought by existing EM modellers to make life simple, and how this might impact the established track makers, maybe causing a drop in sales to the point where they don't have the money to develop the full panoply of crossings, fittings etc?

 

Mike.

Couldn't agree more.

 

Converting stock to EM from 00 is a bit more than 'dropping the new EM wheelsets in'.  At the simplest level, the problems of brake blocks aligning with 00 wheel treads and the need to realign them for EM often means that some of us EM modellers decide to leave the brake blocks off after conversion.  And I am sure it will be some years off before the EMGS / Peco collaboration will produce the variety of point configurations now offered by the ready made EM track suppliers - albeit perhaps that they are not to the level of detail in the new Peco offering. (AM) 

[Bonafide]

The decision to produce a B6 turnout is somewhat puzzling as my understanding is that it has a 4mm scale radius of 49".  The switch rail radius of a B6 turnout is 97", and the radius of the closure rail (between the switch rail and the crossing vee) is 49" (dimensions rounded to the nearest inch).

 

An A7 turnout, which has an overall length slightly less than a B6, has a 4mm scale radius of 76".  An A7 is defined a natural turnout (the radius of the switch rail and that of the closure rail is the same, other natural turnouts include B8, C10 and D12).

 

It would be interesting to know the reason(s) for choosing a B6 turnout.

[martin_wynne]

An A7 turnout, which has an overall length slightly less than a B6, has a 4mm scale radius of 76".  An A7 is defined a natural turnout (the radius of the switch rail and that of the closure rail is the same, other natural turnouts include B8, C10 and D12).

 

It would be interesting to know the reason(s) for choosing a B6 turnout.

 

"A" switches were not used in running lines because of the sharp 1:24 switch deflection. Requiring very low speeds and short-wheelbase locos. They were intended only for yards and sidings.

 

A B-6 is not a common size on the prototype, but a very sensible size for a model. It is the shortest turnout which can look the part when used in running lines. The 1:32 "B" switch provides an element of transition into the turnout curve, for good running. The adoption of 1:6 as a standard angle allows for shorter diamonds and slips than would be the case for 1:7 or 1:8.

 

Track-builders who find the switch area and stretcher bar challenging, may want to chop off the "B" switch section to use it separately and hand-build the rest, thus allowing the creation of B-7s and B-8s if longer turnouts are wanted. And if EMGS wanted to do that at a later date, the "B" switch components can be re-used, reducing the cost of production.

 

Of course, the real drawback of these turnouts, like most RTR turnouts, is that they are straight. A lot of layouts are going to look very samey if all built with straight turnouts. That may represent the look of the modern railway, but it was not the case in bullhead days. If you are out and about on the railway, especially the traditional steam-era railway, you can't help noticing that a great deal of track is curved -- in some places the majority of it. Spot the straight track here:

 

 

 

 

Hopefully having got folks started in EM with these turnouts they will then discover the joys of track-building. It is the ability to create bespoke trackwork such as this to fit your layout space which is the great advantage of building your own.

 

Martin.

[ThaneofFife]

http://www.emgs.org/society-announces-ready-to-lay-em-gauge-track/

 

18.2mm gauge plain bullhead track due Dec 18, B6 lh/rh turnouts, with parallel sleepering on the straight road, due spring 2019, available through EMGS stores (including at expoEM events) 

 

 

 

 

hopefully we can see some samples at Warley...…...looking forward to developments on this.  I think its great news.

[ThaneofFife]

This is good news regarding EM track availability.

 

Diesel conversions are easy. Putting EM wheelers into RTR locos would be ok but the gaps between the frames and the wheels looks wrong. (And some conversions I have seen do have a lot of (wheel wobble). Pushing Bachmann tender wheels out also seems a problem to some "converters".

 

RTR wagons vary from easy (flip new wheels and axles in) to those requiring a bit more scalpel surgery (Some Bachmann wagons have strengthening bars behind the axle boxes). Probably takes longer to replace the couplings.

RTR coaches..again easy to change the wheel sets.

 

So stock isn't a problem. I can't build pointwork, so I could be tempted to build a small diesel based EM layout with the track becoming available.

 

Baz

 

although I wonder how easy the newer coaching stock is to convert (DCC Mk2f coaches from Bachmann and the older Pullmans with table lights).  Do they run in bearings that need to be shifted outwards?

 

I know the Mk2f is not really what youd expect to find on bullhead track but all the same...…...just asking.

ideal for those like me who have been on the verge of starting a brand new layout as opposed to having just bought a load of C&L or Peco bullhead in 00 when you're already balls deep into 00.

Edited November 7, 2018 by ThaneofFife

[KalKat]

Thane = No, it's the wheels that move out, the axles are the same length.

 

 

Emma

[Jub45565]

Interestingly (to me at least!) Hornby LMS bogies & Bachmann LNER bogies are a doddle to convert to P4.

 

Conversely, Bachmann LMS (As per their portholes) and Hornby LNER (as per the suburbans) aren't as the frames are too narrow!

 

Both these Bachmann types are new, with pickups.

 

Theoretically EM wheels are inset a bit, but with wider tyres, so the overall distance over wheelfaces isn't too far apart between the 2 standards.

[Penlan]

Of course, the real drawback of these turnouts, like most RTR turnouts, is that they are straight. A lot of layouts are going to look very samey if all built with straight turnouts. 

Martin.

I agree with Martin, however from my point of view, I shall be needing about 10 points for the fiddle yard part of my existing end-to-end being altered into a roundy-roundy, though the lead in to the fiddle yard is from some long curved points a friend plotted with Templot.   

That's 10 points to just 'place and play', what's not to like. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Penlan

[davefrk]

"A" switches were not used in running lines because of the sharp 1:24 switch deflection. Requiring very low speeds and short-wheelbase locos. They were intended only for yards and sidings.

 

A B-6 is not a common size on the prototype, but a very sensible size for a model. It is the shortest turnout which can look the part when used in running lines. The 1:32 "B" switch provides an element of transition into the turnout curve, for good running. The adoption of 1:6 as a standard angle allows for shorter diamonds and slips than would be the case for 1:7 or 1:8.

 

Track-builders who find the switch area and stretcher bar challenging, may want to chop off the "B" switch section to use it separately and hand-build the rest, thus allowing the creation of B-7s and B-8s if longer turnouts are wanted. And if EMGS wanted to do that at a later date, the "B" switch components can be re-used, reducing the cost of production.

 

Of course, the real drawback of these turnouts, like most RTR turnouts, is that they are straight. A lot of layouts are going to look very samey if all built with straight turnouts. That may represent the look of the modern railway, but it was not the case in bullhead days. If you are out and about on the railway, especially the traditional steam-era railway, you can't help noticing that a great deal of track is curved -- in some places the majority of it. Spot the straight track here:

 

 

 

 

Hopefully having got folks started in EM with these turnouts they will then discover the joys of track-building. It is the ability to create bespoke trackwork such as this to fit your layout space which is the great advantage of building your own.

 

Martin.

 

I agree Martin, having learned the point building trade from the older guys in the club I was in many, many years ago it's not so frightening once you 'get' where the important bits are and where to check the measurements, there are about 60 points in all configurations on Wharfeside and yes I might have used these points if starting now but most would still need to be built from C&L components due to the curves. The points were basically B6 as the 'smallest' then larger ones as needed.

 

 

I think these points will be a boost for EM gauge and hope that future rolling stock will be easy to convert with just an EM wheelset.

 

Dave.

[Jeff Smith]

Interestingly (to me at least!) Hornby LMS bogies & Bachmann LNER bogies are a doddle to convert to P4.

 

Conversely, Bachmann LMS (As per their portholes) and Hornby LNER (as per the suburbans) aren't as the frames are too narrow!

 

Both these Bachmann types are new, with pickups.

 

Theoretically EM wheels are inset a bit, but with wider tyres, so the overall distance over wheelfaces isn't too far apart between the 2 standards.

 

Here's a question that maybe EM gaugers can answer.  When I buy a set of OO Gibson steam loco wheels they come with OO and EM axles.  Do the Gibson OO wheels have narrower treads than the typical RTR OO wheels?  If so presumably a Gibson EM wheel set is narrower overall than if a RTR OO wheelset is regauged and therefore more likely to fit within the brake gear.  Some years ago I fitted Ultrascale drop-in P4 wheels to a Bachmann Pannier and all I had to do was remove the brake pull rods and fit a finer brass strip.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Jeff,

 

The Gibson wheels are narrower, but need to be set to a wider back-to-back on the axles for good running. So the total width across the wheel faces doesn't reduce by as much as you might expect:

 

for EM:

 

RTR wheels (RP25/110) (2.8mm wide) - back-to-back: 16.4mm - total width: 22mm.

 

Markits/Romford wheels (2.5mm wide) - back-to-back: 16.5mm - total width: 21.5mm.

 

Gibson wheels (2.3mm wide) - back-to-back: 16.6mm - total width: 21.2mm

 

for P4:

 

P4 wheels (2mm wide) - back-to-back: 17.7mm - total width: 21.7mm

 

Martin.

Edited November 7, 2018 by martin_wynne

[woodenhead]

Not wanting to put a downer on it it's 2 turnouts both the same crossing angle (which is very welcome indeed),but its not a track system. Having said this its well worth the cost of joining the EM Gauge Society just for the benefits of being a member (Exactoscale parts at a discount) and all the effort of re-wheeling stock just to be closer to the prototype gauge and the benefits from the more stringent standards required

It's enough for people like me to consider EM without having to start with building track.

 

Peco Bullhead has begun in a similar manner, at the end of the day the society has to see the impact of doing a couple of points and some plain track - if no-one buys it then they don't invest further, if it proves popular then like any product they can diversify.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Hi Jeff,

 

The Gibson wheels are narrower, but need to be set to a wider back-to-back on the axles for good running. So the total width across the wheel faces doesn't reduce by as much as you might expect:

 

for EM:

 

RTR wheels (RP25/110) (2.8mm wide) - back-to-back: 16.4mm - total width: 22mm.

 

Markits/Romford wheels (2.5mm wide) - back-to-back: 16.5mm - total width: 21.5mm.

 

Gibson wheels (2.3mm wide) - back-to-back: 16.6mm - total width: 21.2mm

 

for P4:

 

P4 wheels (2mm wide) - back-to-back: 17.7mm - total width: 21.7mm

 

Martin.

Interesting data Martin. Fitting P4 wheels into some RTR 00 steam outline locos is either impossible or requires increasing the clearance in splashers, etc. so it would seem that adapting 00 wheels (if practical) or using Markits may also present problems in EM.  D & E locos probably present less of an issue..

[Nigelcliffe]

Interesting data Martin. Fitting P4 wheels into some RTR 00 steam outline locos is either impossible or requires increasing the clearance in splashers, etc. so it would seem that adapting 00 wheels (if practical) or using Markits may also present problems in EM.  D & E locos probably present less of an issue..

 

Markits presents problems sometimes - I'm still fighting a Hornby K1 with what was sold to the owner as an "easy to fit Markits conversion".   Its involved quite a lot of hours in the workshop, and use of a lathe to make centre crankpins which put the return crank somewhere near the right position. After quite a lot of time, its almost running right, but not quite there yet. 

 

Whereas a bogie diesel was a doddle - pop out the old, pop-in some Ultrascales (which happened to be available by return for that loco at that moment in time). 

[Miss Prism]

Interesting data Martin. Fitting P4 wheels into some RTR 00 steam outline locos is either impossible or requires increasing the clearance in splashers, etc. so it would seem that adapting 00 wheels (if practical) or using Markits may also present problems in EM.  D & E locos probably present less of an issue..

 

That is true, but has always been the case. What is significant is how much this new EM track system might influence RTR manufacturers to be more conscious of the need for better sideframe/splasher placement and clearances in their products.

[88D]

I wonder if dC Concepts rodding cranks will work with these EM points as they do with Peco’s OO points?

[Chuffer Davies]

Markits presents problems sometimes - I'm still fighting a Hornby K1 with what was sold to the owner as an "easy to fit Markits conversion".   Its involved quite a lot of hours in the workshop, and use of a lathe to make centre crankpins which put the return crank somewhere near the right position. After quite a lot of time, its almost running right, but not quite there yet. 

 

Whereas a bogie diesel was a doddle - pop out the old, pop-in some Ultrascales (which happened to be available by return for that loco at that moment in time). 

 

Its not just fitting Markit wheels to ready to run models that can be a problem, I recently tried using them on a Finney 47xx kit and there was no way I could get them behind the slide bars.  I have now received a set of wheels from Ultrascale and as expected as long as there is no side play in the front axle they fit successfully.  

 

Wheelsets from Markits, Ultrascale and Gibson would all lead you to believe that EM and 00 use the same wheel sets albeit at different back to backs.  Whilst this is true for the wheels from these manufacturers it is not necessarily the same for the wheels supplied with proprietary models. I have converted quite a few diesel outline models for a friend's layout using the original wheelsets pulled out on their axles.  What I have discovered is that there is a lot of variation in wheel profiles even within the same manufacturer's products.  The critical measurement for me is the thickness of the flange.  As long as the flange is 0.8mm or less then the 00 wheelsets will run successfully through EM track once the BTB is adjusted and some washers added to eliminate excessive side play.  If the flanges are any thicker then the wheels will bump through the EM point work because the flanges ride up in the flangeways behind check rails.   Such wheels will either need machining or replacement wheel sets purchased.  

 

Frank

[Jeff Smith]

I thought the track standards except gauge, ie check rail gaps etc, were the same as OO

[Bernard Lamb]

I thought the track standards except gauge, ie check rail gaps etc, were the same as OO

 

But which version of 00 ?

You can borrow my can opener.  

Bernard

[Chuffer Davies]

I thought the track standards except gauge, ie check rail gaps etc, were the same as OO

 

Hi Jeff,

That is not the case as can easily be determined by comparing the default gauge versus back to back for EM and 00.  

 

Gauge:  EM = 18.2mm  whereas 00 = 16.5mm  i.e. 1.7mm difference.

BTB:      EM = 16.5mm  whereas 00 = 14.5mm  i.e. 2mm difference.

 

There is therefore a 0.3mm variance that can't be explained by gauge difference alone.

 

Frank

[martin_wynne]

I thought the track standards except gauge, ie check rail gaps etc, were the same as OO

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Yes, EM same standard as 4-SF (00-SF). See: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

Just add 2mm.

 

But not the same as other 00 standards.

 

For details of setting EM back to backs, see: http://4-sf.uk

 

Just add 2mm.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited November 7, 2018 by martin_wynne

[Enterprisingwestern]

I agree with Martin, however from my point of view, I shall be needing about 10 points for the fiddle yard part of my existing end-to-end being altered into a roundy-roundy, though the lead in to the fiddle yard is from some long curved points a friend plotted with Templot.   

That's 10 points to just 'place and play', what's not to like. 

 

Not that I am pouring cold water on the whole concept of the track system, or indeed criticising your efforts, but, in answer to your last question;

1. The price. In fiddle yards "lightweight" pointwork and trackwork can be quickly (and cheaply) assembled from copper clad components.

2. Depending on your preferences and operational requirements, sprung trailing points can be used on the exit from fiddleyards, will the new RTP ones be easily adaptable?

3. As you say in your own situation, not every fiddleyard can be laid out with standard pointwork, so modellers may finish up building some trackwork anyway.

 

Mike.

[Junctionmad]

Not that I am pouring cold water on the whole concept of the track system, or indeed criticising your efforts, but, in answer to your last question;

1. The price. In fiddle yards "lightweight" pointwork and trackwork can be quickly (and cheaply) assembled from copper clad components.

2. Depending on your preferences and operational requirements, sprung trailing points can be used on the exit from fiddleyards, will the new RTP ones be easily adaptable?

3. As you say in your own situation, not every fiddleyard can be laid out with standard pointwork, so modellers may finish up building some trackwork anyway.

 

Mike.

 

The days when copper clad was cheap are long gone

 

I think the primary advantage of RTR plain track and some points is that it presents a " potentially " quicker path to running trains . In reality , it doesnt sidestep ( well until there is a bigger range ) hand building track .  I think the main advantage is largely " subjective " , a feeling that  " nobody gets fired for buying PECO " etc