Jump to content
 

EM - Much improvement over the new Peco bullhead?


Guest WM183
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi folks. 

I have been planning to build my new layout in EM gauge, but now I am uncertain. I've ordered a piece of EM flextrack from the EMGS, and i also have a few pieces of the new Peco bullhead track and a turnout in regular 16.5mm gauge, and... well. You tell me? Side by side, even from directly above, I sure don't see much difference. I also received the EMGS conversion kit for a Bachmann 45xx, but once again I am wondering whether the expense and effort is warranted? Perhaps P4 is a better way to go for me; urgh! I love building things, detailing them and getting very fine running, but I am unsure if it's worth it, at least for EM. I suppose the wheels will look a bit more proper under locomotives, but how often on a shelf layout will I see an engine from anything like a frontal angle?

PS. This is NOT a knock on EM. If anything, it's an endorsement of the Peco bullhead track!

Unsure what to do here.

tzIwcF0.jpg

Edit: Removed huge image for a slightly less huge image.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the one on the left is narrow gauge  for a start .Looks like you have a choice of narrow or almost accurate .It doesnt bother me in the slightest  but for some its the most important thing in their lives at least judging by responses to such matters.So if yo cant tell the difference dont bother .As you say on a shelf you wont see it .

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you enjoy your layout any less if you use RTR 00 track?

If it'll give you no additional enjoyment to use EM or P4, then save your time and effort for things that will enhance your enjoyment of your hobby.

 

The only wrong answer in these things is doing something you won't enjoy.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly the wheels on my Bachmann 45xx are noticably a bit larger in diameter than the EM replacements, measuring across the tread. 18mm for the EM ones vs. 18.6mm for the Bachmann wheels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried going EM some years back.  Converting wagons and coaches are a doddle.  Converting diesels is not difficult, usually a simple wheelset drop in.  Converting steam locos with splashers is where I fell flat on my face.  I found there wasn't the real estate to clear the splashers.

 

While plain track to EM is easily obtained, turnouts have to be made to order (Marcway copperclad timbers) or you need to make them yourself (a skillset that is worth learning btw).  EMGS have commissioned Peco to produce turnouts although I don't know the status.

 

Zomboid is right, if you construct your layout from finescale (code 75 bullhead) track, the difference is not all that obvious, and you can focus on running trains.

 

John

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WM183 said:

Interestingly the wheels on my Bachmann 45xx are noticably a bit larger in diameter than the EM replacements, measuring across the tread. 18mm for the EM ones vs. 18.6mm for the Bachmann wheels.

Should be 18.5 mm for Four feet seven and a half inches so the originals are a bit more accurate.  The EM track looks a lot better to me than the half and half 16.5 with 4mm ft sleeper spacing.  To be honest to me standard H0 track looks better than the 00 peco, the sleepers just look too long in relation to the gauge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Peco bullhead track has sleepers in proportion to the gauge though; they're shorter than the EM sleepers, which I guess is to maintain the relationship?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, WM183 said:

I have been planning to build my new layout in EM gauge, but now I am uncertain.

Unsure what to do here.

 

My two penn'orth.

If you are needing to ask the question then you have answered the question, if the difference doesn't doesn't jump out at you and make you want to model EM along with all it's added "complications", then Peco bullhead will do you just fine.

 

Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, WM183 said:

The Peco bullhead track has sleepers in proportion to the gauge though; they're shorter than the EM sleepers, which I guess is to maintain the relationship?

 

the sleepers are shorter but the same distance apart, which gives a slight narrow gauge look. If you cut the webs between the sleepers and move them slightly closer together it looks better. Modern OO track can look very good but you can't get away from the way loco wheels don't look right in a splasher other than a side on view. That alone is enough to keep me firmly on my chosen EM path. A loco with larger wheels that cut into the boiler just doesn't seem right.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm a bit at a loss to see the point of EM. I've heard that the conversion of stock is easier to manage than P4, but there must be other factors that justify making your own track and modding stock to another fictional gauge.

P4 over OO, well it is about the look of the track and the feeling that it's right, pointwork has the correct clearances and actually looks real. Yes there are some that will show you a length of ballasted code 75 OO track and say "who needs P4 or EM, look at the realism of code 75". Yes i agree that it does look good albeit without any real comparison, but it all falls down when you look at the points/turnouts.

I like the look of P4 and enjoy making track and modding stock, but if that's not what you want out of your model railway then code 75 in OO looks a good option.

Edited by rdr
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you start to build/buy EM turnouts you will notice the difference, mostly in looks but also the performance should improve.

 

My own thoughts on the subject which I appreciate many will not agree with are

Certainly with Peco the geometry of the track looks awful. Standard streamline is too small being built to H0 scale, the turnout timbers should be wider than the flexi track (12" apposed to 10"), the tiebar/point motor mounting fixings look toy like as does the heal end with the crooked bent last timber. Flatbottom rail not appropriate for all eras, lack of chairs if modelling earlier railways. These faults can be overcome with either drastic surgery or by building your own turnouts and crossings

 

The new 00 gauge bullhead flexitrack is a great step forward, the turnouts sadly have a timber orientation (equalised) that will not suite all, the tiebar is better looking, but still has un-prototypical  bent last timber

 

Not seen either the EM gauge society turnouts or flexitrack production sample yet, The flexitrack certainly looks to be an improvement on the C&L and SMP thin sleepered track bases and saves time over the Exactoscale Fastrack bases in not having to cut the webbing on curved track. The appearance will look much better on turnouts with the much finer standards and tolerances, plus based on prototypical designs, performance will also improve 

 

P4 is a further step down the finer standards and looks road. however due to the much finer flanges the build quality in all aspects must be far more accurate than EM or P4. Just a step too far for me

 

In my opinion EM is a better compromise as it is far more forgiving than P4 but allows better standards to be used which certainly improves the visual aspect and should improve running qualities

 

As for 00 gauge a lot of my criticisms about the appearance and performance can be addressed by building your own trackwork, firstly in using the correct scale timbers along with the correct rail and chairs, then using plans with the correct design characteristics. Finally I have nothing against using ready to run stock, the trackwork can be improved further in 00 gauge (without altering the wheel sets) by tightening up the standards (00SF) again in my opinion this both improves the appearance and running characteristics.

 

I came to the conclusion if going to all this trouble building to 00SF standards to improve the visual aspect of 00 gauge, for me its a simple step to migrate to move to EM gauge to improve them further. I liken it to the fact that many years ago we accepted models (either RTR or kit built) with the wrong chassis, now we expect better and would not buy these items,

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of being shot down in flames once again, this is the reason I moved to EM nearly 40 years ago, the look of the track not forgetting the finer wheels than what was around back then.

1511464660_BRClanonWharfeside.JPG.35c0d6bf1562be3077b03717cb78b169.JPG

Track is  L to R : C&L components, Bedford Flatbottom etched baseplates with C&L flatbottom rail, C&L flexi, Pointwork C&L components on ply sleepers.

Yes I've worked in P4 as well but for other people.

 

Dave Franks.

 

Dave Franks.

  • Like 14
  • Agree 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, davefrk said:

At the risk of being shot down in flames once again, this is the reason I moved to EM nearly 40 years ago, the look of the track not forgetting the finer wheels than what was around back then.

1511464660_BRClanonWharfeside.JPG.35c0d6bf1562be3077b03717cb78b169.JPG

Track is  L to R : C&L components, Bedford Flatbottom etched baseplates with C&L flatbottom rail, C&L flexi, Pointwork C&L components on ply sleepers.

Yes I've worked in P4 as well but for other people.

 

Dave Franks.

 

Dave Franks.

 

Very nice Dave! I have built one or two things in P4 for other people. All it did was to reinforce my decision to stay with EM! Everything took at least twice as long to get working properly. Looks better than OO. Much easier than P4. An ideal compromise.

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

Perhaps I will have a go anyway. I've got a set of wheels now, I should probably build a turnout or two to see what I think. EM can give better running?

 

EDIT: So GWR would be 2 bolt chairs and 2 bolt slide chairs, I believe? I'll order a couple C&L sleeper and chair kits and some rail and have a go.

Edited by WM183
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, WM183 said:

... Perhaps P4 is a better way to go for me; urgh! I love building things, detailing them and getting very fine running...

 

6 minutes ago, WM183 said:

...Perhaps I will have a go anyway. I've got a set of wheels now, I should probably build a turnout or two to see what I think. EM can give better running?...

You will just have to try for yourself, if you like building detailed items for fine running then P4 is a good fit.

 

Historical review.

EM started as a way to make 4mm scale models both look and perform better then the commercial RTR OO of the 1950s, which was grossly coarse in every respect, and succeeded mightily in this.

 

P4 was the following advance of 'let's go as true scale as feasible', and looks proportionately yet more wonderful.

 

Where we are now. RTR OO is now rather good. While hampered by the scale to gauge error, the overall appearance and running quality has closed the gap to EM and P4 very significantly, to the extent of modellers in both EM and P4 making regular use of RTR OO as the basis for producing their models.

 

Pays your money, makes your choice.

 

I for example am an operator above all else, and want large UK outside valve gear locos to whang along at scale for 90mph on part of the East Coast racetrack. Much as I like both EM and P4 and have modelled in both in the past, I know my limitations when it comes to making a fleet of Doncaster wide firebox design models to perform in this way. A little ordinary care with the RTR OO now available, is so much simpler, and it looks very well, and it runs beautifully with the help that DCC provides. Bliss.

 

But for someone for whom finely detailed model construction is the major interest, there may be a very different answer.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WM183 said:

Perhaps I will have a go anyway. I've got a set of wheels now, I should probably build a turnout or two to see what I think. EM can give better running?

 

EDIT: So GWR would be 2 bolt chairs and 2 bolt slide chairs, I believe? I'll order a couple C&L sleeper and chair kits and some rail and have a go.

 

 

At the moment C&L do not sell 2 bolt slide chairs, Modelu sell 3D printed ones but they are the rounded veriarty, C&L now do the squarer type of chair, though Phil still had a few packs a while back of the rounded veriarty

 

There is something about the stance of the loco which does look a little better, and finer scale wheels do look nice to boot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Years ago I had the same dilemma. I had decided that I wanted to have a go at modelling pre-grouping Caledonian. Did someone say masochist ? 

 

Anyway, I knew a wee bit about the CR, specifically how they laid the track. 8' 11 1/2 " sleepers , the correct spacings for running and at joints every 30 foot. I also knew a bit about interleaved sleepers for pointwork, I had drawings and a few pics in a book. What I didn't have was modelling confidence. I had built layouts in N and made some pointwork but there was of course the appeal of OO to get things up and running . 

 

So I bought some rail and track parts. And I bought some OO track and a point. I bought some wagon kits from what was then model wagon company and built a couple with OO wheels and a couple with proper EM wheels, Keen Maygib. Name from the past. 

 

I stuck my first go at EM built to the dimensions specified by the CR and the very bad first go at a  interleaved sleeper point to a plank. I stuck the bit of OO with a point next to it. I trundled my wagons along. 

 

Then I picked up some books with photos of the CR. I propped the books next to my test plank and squinted at it all. Compare and contrast. Which one actually looked like the track in the books from the same angles ? I gave the whole thing a very hard looking at. 

 

Its your choice in the end and depends entirely on what you want to build. But don't compare one bit of track against another, compare them both to the prototype. 

 

 

 

 

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

8 hours ago, WM183 said:

Perhaps I will have a go anyway. I've got a set of wheels now, I should probably build a turnout or two to see what I think. EM can give better running?

 

EDIT: So GWR would be 2 bolt chairs and 2 bolt slide chairs, I believe? I'll order a couple C&L sleeper and chair kits and some rail and have a go.

 

If you view modelling in EM or P4 as an effort, then it is probably not for you.

 

If you think you are prepared to put time in to building and converting models then it may be your thing.

 

Build some track, a few wagons and convert the 45XX.

 

If you enjoy the experience then keep going!

 

Regards,

 

Craig Warton (p4 modeller)

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much agree with the above. For me 30 years ago moving to EM was a way to put some discipline into my models, to make sure that I could basically start afresh with a consistent standard, banish the RTR, and enjoy lots of good track and loco building. And I do enjoy it. As someone has said above, if you see all this as a chore, it's maybe not for you, but I'd encourage you to have a go, not with converted RTR but a proper kit. If it gives you pleasure then EM is the way to go. If you feel you're are wasting good operating time, then you know the answer.

 

Another plug for EM - we have some great area groups - the other night we visited a new member's layout and were simply blown away by the quality - inspirational, and real food for thought.

 

Good luck whatever way you decide to go.

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

I cannot disagree with you here, as in the past if you wanted an EM gauge layout most items if not converted had to be built. With the advent of EM gauge ready to run track hopefully EM gauge will be be viable to far more railway modellers. Added to this the quality of ready to run/plant is of higher quality than many are able to produce themselves

 

The stumbling block may still be motive power, certainly many basic kit built locos potentially lend themselves to easy conversion. Also I understand both the Society and some manufacturers supply drop in wheelsets for some RTR motive power. Somehow these two groups need to make  their availability and ease of use better known

Link to post
Share on other sites

I managed to achieve accurate track (well, rail spacing) in a different manner - HO.

Not much use if you want to model railways in the UK using RTR rolling stock, but if you're willing to scratch build or 3D print most of your trains, and use American/ European kits where they're appropriate then it might work...

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...