Jump to content
 

Hands up EM SF modellers please


Recommended Posts

I'm thinking of changing gauge to EM-SF, that is 18mm gauge, 0.8mm flangeway gap.  The attraction is that it looks better than normal EM and any of the OO standards, mainly because of the finer flangeway gap that is almost P4.  I've given P4 a try and it's not for me.  EM sounds attractive in that suspension is generally not required and now that the EMGS are bringing out ready to lay track that will make things even easier still.

 

So are there many EM -SF modellers?  Do you need suspension?  Whose wheels do you run?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polybear said:

But isn't the EMGS RTR track 18.2mm with 1mm flangeway gaps?

 

Correct.

I model in EM and was not aware of there being a EM-SF.

To the naked eye I would not have thought you could see the difference between a 1.0mm flangeway and a 0.8mm one.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am considering trying it. There should not be any problem with compatibility with standard EM wheels as the minimum specified back to back dimensions will pass through turnouts and crossings with the smaller check rail gap. The benefit is shorter gaps in turnouts for the wheels to drop into. The downside is unavailability of gauges - though I have a piece of nickel silver of the appropriate width to act as a check rail gauge. 

But don't expect a report from me in the near future on its success or failure as the layout is still in its ear;y stages.

There was a long item  about this in a recent EMGS newsletter; also an announcement - I think correctly - that the Society will not at the moment be changing its standards or incorporating this option.

There is a similar debate about Fine Scale o Gauge where the play in wheelsets and turnouts is truly enormous, though the chosen solution there is to reduce the gauge to 32.5 or 32.2 mm. The Arun Quay layout uses the latter gauge.

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Denbridge said:

The biggest proponents are Pendon Museum. The biggest hurdle you'll find is sourcing wheels. Ultrascale used to do their range in EMF but I don't think they're available anymore.

 

Apparently Gibson and Markits wheels are okay.  Here's what Martin Wynne wrote recently on the Templot forum:

 

Quote

EM-SF uses 18.0mm gauge and a 0.8mm flangeway with existing EM wheelsets, to tighten up the standards for better running of EMGS and other EM kit wheels at existing back-to-backs. But unlike ordinary EM it won't accept widened RTR wheels. Check span is 16.4mm, so the minimum back-to-back is 16.5mm.

Gauge-widening is needed on sharp curves, for which 18.2mm flexi-track is suitable, transitioned down to 18.0mm over the last few sleepers connecting to EM-SF pointwork (in the same way that 00-SF modellers use 16.5mm flexi-track). 

Wheels running on EM-SF layouts will also run on ordinary EM and vice versa, and pointwork to both standards can be used on the same layout, providing there are no RTR wheels.

RTR wheels (NMRA RP25/110) widened to EM have, or should have, a back-to-back of 16.4mm, and a flange thickness of 0.8mm, so they won't run on EM-SF.

EM-SF is worth looking at for anyone building an EM layout and definitely not intending to run RTR wheels. It looks better and will run a bit better than ordinary EM.

Pointwork to EM-SF can be added to an existing EM layout, providing there are no RTR wheels.

Did I mention that EM-SF won't work with RTR wheels?  


 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, Denbridge said:

The biggest hurdle you'll find is sourcing wheels. Ultrascale used to do their range in EMF but I don't think they're available anymore.

 

There is no hurdle. EM-SF works with wheels to the EMGS standard profile, it doesn't require extra-fine wheels.

 

i.e. it works with typical kit wheels to the EMGS standard having flanges 0.6mm thick, and similar wheels to the NMRA RP25/88 profile. e.g. Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, etc.

 

They should be set to back-to-backs in the range 16.5mm - 16.6mm, i.e. exactly the same as for ordinary EM, and are therefore interchangeable on ordinary EM layouts. The check gauge (17.2mm) is the same as for ordinary EM.

 

Romford/Markits wheels (0.7mm flanges) are borderline on EM-SF, and will need careful back-to-backs set closely to 16.5mm. They probably won't work on sharp curves.

 

Widened RTR wheels won't work on EM-SF, unlike ordinary EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

The benefit is shorter gaps in turnouts for the wheels to drop into

 

The downside is unavailability of gauges

 

chosen solution there is to reduce the gauge to 32.5 or 32.2 mm.

 

 

Hi Jonathan,

 

My red.

 

Wheel drop is caused when gaps are too wide, not too long.

 

You already have the most important gauge, the 17.2mm check gauge, because it is the same as for ordinary EM.

 

That should be 31.5 or 31.2 mm.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have worked to 18.2mm EM gauge, 0.8mm flangeway gap with a B2B of 17mm and Alan Gibson wheels.

EM wheels on steam locos and P4 on all rolling stock with no  suspension!!

You can see a big difference between a 1.0mm flangeway and a 0.8mm one it smaller than the top of rail.

DSC_0062.JPG.4b6aa75ec56706f53497be9973498aec.JPGDSC_0037.JPG.09f4a0335703605c3ef0c18a55ba3699.JPG

 

Duncan

 

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, SR DUNCAN said:

I have worked to 18.2mm EM gauge, 0.8mm flangeway gap with a B2B of 17mm and Alan Gibson wheels.

EM wheels on steam locos and P4 on all rolling stock with no  suspension!!

 

Hi Duncan,

 

That gives a check gauge of 17.4mm.

 

Your 17mm max back-to-back is correct for P4 wheels having 0.4mm flanges.

 

For EM wheels with thicker 0.6mm flanges the max back-to-back needs to be reduced to 16.8mm, otherwise there is a risk that wheel flanges will hit the nose of crossings.

 

The minimum back-to-back is 16.7mm.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks for correcting my typing re Fine Scale 7 mm as used on Arun Quay.

I realise what Martin is saying about the gap at crossings. However, moving the wing rail closer to the crossing nose, because the gap between the "check rail" part of the wing rail and the crossing vee is reduced, also reduces the distance between the point where the wheel leaves the wing rail and where it reaches the crossing nose, albeit by only a small amount. I hope my terminology is correct and has not just confused everyone.

One reason why I said that I am considering this change is that reducing the gauge has a detrimental effect on the appearance of the track, and I have not yet decided whether this is worth sacrificing, since I have never had problems with running through pointwork.

Jonathan

PS If there were to be a formal change, I would prefer to see the present gauge retained and the check rail gap reduced, but that would really upset the applecart as all wheel standards would have to be rewritten, and really it would be P4 without the accurate gauge, so little real benefit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

I hope I will be forgiven, but I do find it rather amusing that EM used to be 18.00mm, was widened to 18.2mm to allow for the use of Romford wheels with their then thicker flanges ( I think that's correct), and EM-SF now takes it back to 18.00mm to get finer flangeways......

 

Way back last century, (well the 1990's but it sounds good), I modelled in O gauge finescale using 32mm gauge but with an increased b-t-b of 29.8mm to allow finer flangeways. I didn't have the nous to consider narrowing the gauge a bit which would have been a much easier route I think, and the one which is now used.

 

Izzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

moving the wing rail closer to the crossing nose, because the gap between the "check rail" part of the wing rail and the crossing vee is reduced, also reduces the distance between the point where the wheel leaves the wing rail and where it reaches the crossing nose

 

Hi Jonathan,

 

When the wheel width is correctly matched to the track standard, the wheel does not leave the wing rail until it is already supported on the crossing nose. It remains fully supported and does not have to jump over a gap.

 

PS If there were to be a formal change

 

EM-SF is an option listed in Templot for those who want it. It is not a change, it is an option.

 

There is also the EM4 option for those who want that. (18.8mm gauge, 0.8mm flangeway gap). Unlike EM-SF, the EM4 option does not provide wheel compatibility with ordinary EM.

 

These are all options for those who want them. The vast majority of EM modellers are happy with the ordinary EM option from the EMGS and will continue to use it.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Izzy said:

I hope I will be forgiven, but I do find it rather amusing that EM used to be 18.00mm, was widened to 18.2mm to allow for the use of Romford wheels with their then thicker flanges ( I think that's correct), and EM-SF now takes it back to 18.00mm to get finer flangeways

 

Hi Izzy,

 

What I find amusing is that modellers are so pre-occupied with the track gauge. The track gauge is largely irrelevant, it is widened for example on sharp curves.

 

The critical and most important dimension is the check gauge. This is 17.2mm, and is exactly the same for both EM-SF and ordinary EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Izzy,

 

What I find amusing is that modellers are so pre-occupied with the track gauge. The track gauge is largely irrelevant, it is widened for example on sharp curves.

 

The critical and most important dimension is the check gauge. This is 17.2mm, and is exactly the same for both EM-SF and ordinary EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Apologies to the OP for being slightly OT, but I always recall someone swearing blind they could spot the 0.3mm difference between 00 and 00-sf with the naked eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

One reason why I said that I am considering this change is that reducing the gauge has a detrimental effect on the appearance of the track, and I have not yet decided whether this is worth sacrificing, since I have never had problems with running through pointwork.

 

I think the point is that people notice proportions more than absolute distances so nobody would really notice a difference in 0.2mm over 18mm or so (about 1%), but would notice the improvement of 0.2mm over a 1mm distance (a 20% difference) - even discounting any differences in running properties.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2019 at 19:28, SR DUNCAN said:

I have worked to 18.2mm EM gauge, 0.8mm flangeway gap with a B2B of 17mm and Alan Gibson wheels.

EM wheels on steam locos and P4 on all rolling stock with no  suspension!!

You can see a big difference between a 1.0mm flangeway and a 0.8mm one it smaller than the top of rail.

 

Duncan

 

 

Duncan, what made you use P4 wheels for rolling stock?  Don't you find that wagons with longer wheelbases tend to derail easily?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/02/2019 at 19:28, SR DUNCAN said:

I have worked to 18.2mm EM gauge, 0.8mm flangeway gap with a B2B of 17mm and Alan Gibson wheels.

EM wheels on steam locos and P4 on all rolling stock with no  suspension!!

You can see a big difference between a 1.0mm flangeway and a 0.8mm one it smaller than the top of rail.

DSC_0037.JPG.09f4a0335703605c3ef0c18a55ba3699.JPG

 The picture illustrates the advantages of finer flangeways very eloquently,  but what catches my eye is the out of vertical signal box...

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 The picture illustrates the advantages of finer flangeways very eloquently,  but what catches my eye is the out of vertical signal box...

 

thank you  David for your complimentary remarks on the tracks appearance.  Yes I know about the signal box not being upright but it was just dumped there to fill what looked like a large gap.

Duncan

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...