Correct gauge?

[farren]

I have made some hand built track in the past to standard OO gauge and it worked resemble well though have reverted back to bought track for may latest layout and though it all works it dose look to narrow. 
 

I don’t think I have the stills to build a layout in P4 and for it to run as good as would be wanted. So I was wondering is there a way and do people build to the correct gauge of P4 but with say OO tolerances. Or is there something that would make this unworkable I hadn’t thought of.

[Siberian Snooper]

At least one layout has been built to P4 using EM tolerances and is on the exhibition circuit and that is Tim Ventons 'Clutton'

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/layoutsclutton.html

 

 

 

 

[HSB]

Why not just go for EM? I find it very hard to tell the difference from P4 at normal viewing distances and you can even get PECO EM track now through the EMGS. As has been quoted before - 90% of the result for 10% of the effort!

[Gordon A]

2 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

At least one layout has been built to P4 using EM tolerances and is on the exhibition circuit and that is Tim Ventons 'Clutton'

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/layoutsclutton.html

 

 

 

 

Errr No! As far as one regular operators of Clutton I can state that it is built  solely to P4 standards.

 

There was a P4 layout which ran using re gauged EM wheels built by Martin Goodall.

 

Gordon A

Edited August 22, 2020 by Gordon A

[Wheatley]

Burford I think, details on the S4 Soc forum, you don't need to be a member to read it. The description of using EM wheels re-gauged (so you get the deeperEM flange) is in an old MRJ. 

 

I'm with HSB- EM will give you the effect you want with greater tolerances than P4. 

[hayfield]

27 minutes ago, HSB said:

Why not just go for EM? I find it very hard to tell the difference from P4 at normal viewing distances and you can even get PECO EM track now through the EMGS. As has been quoted before - 90% of the result for 10% of the effort!

 

1 minute ago, Wheatley said:

Burford I think, details on the S4 Soc forum, you don't need to be a member to read it. The description of using EM wheels re-gauged (so you get the deeperEM flange) is in an old MRJ. 

 

I'm with HSB- EM will give you the effect you want with greater tolerances than P4. 

 

 

I am with these others, EM gauge may offer an easier route into something like standard gauge in 4 mm scale

 

What may confuse matters is that Markits as well as providing 00 & EM gauge axles also provide P4 gauge axles for their wheels. (I use them for setting up P4 chassis)

 

Whilst it may be possible to build track to 18.83 gauge but with less than scale check and wing rail clearances, the simple reply is why? But there is nothing stopping you. But if you are having to ask the question I would assume you may struggle to maintain the adaptions to make it work properly

 

The benefit of EM gauge is they support their members (and public at their shows) with the correct range of gauges for track building, whilst the track will be 0.63 mm too narrow will it be noticeable ? I think the combination of the wider (EM) gauge and the correct size and spacing of sleepers and timbers will make the difference you are looking for

[Siberian Snooper]

2 hours ago, Gordon A said:

Errr No! As far as one regular operators of Clutton I can state that it is built  solely to P4 standards.

 

There was a P4 layout which ran using re gauged EM wheels built by Martin Goodall.

 

Gordon A

 

It was  Tim's 3 foot radius curves that confused me, easily done these days and it is indeed Burford that has the EM gauge wheels.

 

 

[Grovenor]

15 hours ago, farren said:

So I was wondering is there a way and do people build to the correct gauge of P4 but with say OO tolerances. Or is there something that would make this unworkable I hadn’t thought of.

To get good running with 00 tolerances means using 00 width wheels, and the width over the outside of the wheels then is so wide it will not fit in splasher or bogie frames etc, and any outside cylinder locos would have to have the cylinder centres over scale width. Just like H0 in fact.

Modern 00 wheels are not as wide as they used to be and can just about be opened up enough for EM without getting into these issues.

[farren]

Thank you all for your answers it was mainly just a idea, However I didn’t release Peco did EM track, and I have been   thinking a small Diesel MPD layout. this would land itself to a new comer to EM no valve gear to worry about. 

[hayfield]

34 minutes ago, farren said:

 I didn’t release Peco did EM track, and I have been  

 

 

Via the EM gauge society

[down the sdjr]

On 22/08/2020 at 17:52, farren said:

Thank you all for your answers it was mainly just a idea, However I didn’t release Peco did EM track, and I have been   thinking a small Diesel MPD layout. this would land itself to a new comer to EM no valve gear to worry about. 

The EMGS Peco track is very good, but only straight B6 points available and no spring mechanism on the switch rails, so you will need a point motor or like wise to keep the point blades in place.

[Junctionmad]

On 22/08/2020 at 17:52, farren said:

Thank you all for your answers it was mainly just a idea, However I didn’t release Peco did EM track, and I have been   thinking a small Diesel MPD layout. this would land itself to a new comer to EM no valve gear to worry about. 

EMGS commissioned PECO to make the track, so peco technically don’t sell EM track they are just a contract manufacturer 

[roythebus]

As I've mentioned on here before, I had a visitor round a few years ago to buy some 2nd hand stock. He looked at my layout and commented how good P4 looks. It is actually 00sf planned out with Templot, that is in my eyes what makes the difference, just having the track flowing.

 

As they say, forget the width, feel the quality (or something like that).

 

[martin_wynne]

On 22/08/2020 at 00:40, farren said:

So I was wondering is there a way and do people build to the correct gauge of P4 but with say 00 tolerances. Or is there something that would make this unworkable I hadn’t thought of.

 

 

It won't work. At least for UK-outline steam locomotives. The wider 00 wheels won't fit inside splashers, or behind valve gear and cylinders, etc. Even if you can make them fit, you won't be able to provide sufficient sideplay to get round typical model curves. There is a reason 00 is the way it is.

 

If you want a scale-width model and an exact-scale track gauge you must also use exact-scale wheel profiles and tolerances. That's why H0 is wrong -- using wide RTR wheels on an exact-scale gauge, every H0 model in the world is too wide over the running gear.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[jim.snowdon]

On 25 August 2020 at 07:07, martin_wynne said:

 

It won't work. At least for UK-outline steam locomotives. The wider 00 wheels won't fit inside splashers, or behind valve gear and cylinders, etc. Even if you can make them fit, you won't be able to provide sufficient sideplay to get round typical model curves. There is a reason 00 is the way it is.

 

If you want a scale-width model and an exact-scale track gauge you must also use exact-scale wheel profiles and tolerances. That's why H0 is wrong -- using wide RTR wheels on an exact-scale gauge, every H0 model in the world is too wide over the running gear.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Which is how EM gauge came into being, as "scale" wheelsets were no wider, more or less, than the proprietary RTR wheels of the time. At 18mm gauge, they fitted inside the splashers and axleguards, whereas at the more correct 19mm gauge they didn't.

 

Jim

[Andy Reichert]

On 24/08/2020 at 23:07, martin_wynne said:

 

It won't work. At least for UK-outline steam locomotives. The wider 00 wheels won't fit inside splashers, or behind valve gear and cylinders, etc. Even if you can make them fit, you won't be able to provide sufficient sideplay to get round typical model curves. There is a reason 00 is the way it is.

 

If you want a scale-width model and an exact-scale track gauge you must also use exact-scale wheel profiles and tolerances. That's why H0 is wrong -- using wide RTR wheels on an exact-scale gauge, every H0 model in the world is too wide over the running gear.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Ah, but to spot that, is something you can only see by watching an HO model (steam and with splashers) end on.  How many layouts have that viewing capability if you don't lean over the baseboard and lay your head on the track? And even then only for the duration while any moving locomotive is in view and moving slowly enough to judge.

 

OTOH, 00 and it's derivatives have the 3.5 mm scale gauge, but typically full 4mm scale over sized sleepers and over wide sleeper spacing and over height rail height. All of which taken together distort the track geometry to make the track look more like prototypical narrow gauge track. But that distortion is permanent and visible from every viewpoint on and around the layout, all the time.

 

The "wrong everywhere,  all the time" aspect can be mitigated by making track for UK 00 to 3.5 mm scale in every dimension.  Then it only looks wrong (but end-on only again), with a 4 mm scale model placed on it.  And gosh, that is still no worse than the same "always wrong" that all 4 mm models look on 00 16.5 mm gauge (or even narrower gauge versions) anyway.

 

And 3.5 mm scale 16. mm gauged track provides exactly the same model tight radius capability and full cylinder and splasher clearances as traditional 00 track. So no performance issues either. 

 

Just comparing the number of visual errors one way or the other, making UK style track to true 3.5 mm scale, wins hands down over traditional UK 00 "pseudo" 4mm scale track. 

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

10 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

Just comparing the number of visual errors one way or the other, making UK style track to true 3.5 mm scale, wins hands down over traditional UK 00 "pseudo" 4mm scale track.

 

 

Not if the rest of the layout is built to 4mm/ft scale.

 

3.5mm/ft track looks wrong on a 4mm/ft layout even without any stock on it. Just consider the double-track spacing for example, or the appearance of the skinny track under an arched bridge.

 

The solution is extremely simple. I've mentioned it here often. All that is needed is to decide that the prototype you are modelling was built to 4ft-1.5in track gauge. If you donate a suitable sum to your local heritage line I'm sure they would build a length of it for you, to placate any who suggest no such thing exists.

 

Each to his own.

 

Martin.

[ikcdab]

How something looks is obviously very subjective. I build my track to 16.5mm gauge using the finescale standard. Please don't ask me which one, I use the gauges I have and my templot printouts and it works for me. Anyway, with proper sleeper sizes and spacing and the finer code 75 rail, I think it looks pretty good. Ok, i have nothing to compare it with, but i am happy with the look which is vastly superior to streamline.

Ian

[PatB]

As a lazy individual with limited time available for hobbies my preference would be to either, a) do what the vast majority of 4mm modellers do, and slap down some Streamline, disguising it, to a greater or lesser extent with ballast, paint and careful attention to alignment and level, and not worry about the visual compromises, or b) for better appearance and a degree of scale cred, go to EM, with the plentiful assistance of the EMGS, and spend my evenings pulling 00 wheels out a bit on their axles. 

 

Going to P4 gauge, but with 00 clearances seems to combine the effort of doing something non-standard with many of the compromises of doing things the easy, off the shelf way. 

[hayfield]

10 hours ago, ikcdab said:

How something looks is obviously very subjective. I build my track to 16.5mm gauge using the finescale standard. Please don't ask me which one, I use the gauges I have and my templot printouts and it works for me. Anyway, with proper sleeper sizes and spacing and the finer code 75 rail, I think it looks pretty good. Ok, i have nothing to compare it with, but i am happy with the look which is vastly superior to streamline.

Ian

 

Ian

 

Certainly going to code 75 rail from code 100 looks far better as does (in my opinion) migrating from flatbottom track with some form of clips to bullhead with chairs if the era chosen requires it. Certainly it is much easier to  obtain trackwork in bullhead rail and chairs than ever before, so the excuse in not doing so reduces.

 

As to gauge well there are some very strong opinions on this. Certainly finance is one thing, as someone with a large collection may understandably bulk at the cost of conversion let  alone the time involved in doing so. But this is not a reason for discouraging  those thinking of doing so.

 

On the other hand someone who wants their models to be closer to the prototype should be encouraged to do so, the next question is EM or P4. A whole new subject on its own and probably depends more on the modellers skill sets. 

 

The overriding factor must be the satisfaction you derive from modelling. We all have to accept compromises in life, why should our railway modelling be anything different ? 

 

  

[37Oban]

Hi,

I can only speak from my own perspective on this, but I would definitely go down the EM route.  In my experience the costs involved are not excessive.  No matter what gauge you model if you build your own track you have to buy the necessary gauges, and these last for years, if not a lifetime!  Diesel locomotives are easy to re-wheel, as is most rolling stock, although some may need a little bit of ingenuity to do, which is part of the fun.  Yes, it may seem that re-wheeling all your stock is expensive, but you don't have to do it all at once and some oo wheel sets can be reset to gauge.  Also, if you save the oo wheels if you ever decide EM is not for you then you can always replace them and sell on the EM ones.  However, I think once you take the plunge you'll soon be selling on the oo wheels!

 

Roja

[martin_wynne]

There is not much compromise needed:

 

1. buy some of the very fine 00 RTR models now available.

 

2. measure their wheels.

 

3. build the most suitable track for them to run on.

 

For current RTR models, that would be about 16.3mm track gauge with 1.1mm flangeways.

 

However, in order also to run the finer wheels found in model kits, it's worth compromising a bit on that:

 

1. make the track a bit narrower at 16.2mm track gauge with 1.0mm flangeways,

 

 and accept that:

 

2. you may need to check that wheel back-to-backs are within limits (14.3mm - 14.4mm), and

 

3. add some gauge-widening, up to a maximum of 16.5mm track gauge, on very sharp curves.

 

That's not a lot of compromise, and the result will be good-looking track and smooth running through pointwork.

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

18 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Not if the rest of the layout is built to 4mm/ft scale.

 

3.5mm/ft track looks wrong on a 4mm/ft layout even without any stock on it. Just consider the double-track spacing for example, or the appearance of the skinny track under an arched bridge.

 

The solution is extremely simple. I've mentioned it here often. All that is needed is to decide that the prototype you are modelling was built to 4ft-1.5in track gauge. If you donate a suitable sum to your local heritage line I'm sure they would build a length of it for you, to placate any who suggest no such thing exists.

 

Each to his own.

 

Martin.

 

I bet you can't tell the difference between 4 mm scale field and a 3.5 mm one.   Ditto for the grand old English Oaks. I wonder how many UK layouts  have a scale width UK main road with pavements?  And how does 16.5mm gauge with 4mm oversize sleepers look more correct than 16.5 mm gauge with 3.5 mm sleepers with right matching proportions under an arched bridge of unknown dimensions ???

 

I already checked my UK 4 mm stock happily passes on the straight with a handy imperial 1.5" track spacing vs. 2" for RTR.  The metric spacings  for a scale 6 ft way are 37.5 mm HO vs. 40.5 mm 00. (1.5" is 38.1 mm). So any of those figures are going to appear the same until you place a vernier caliper on the track. (Not a good idea for DCC).

 

It's only the building doorway heights that offer any sort of accurate close up comparison. And since railway and commercial buildings typically have randomly higher doors anyway, I see no reason why they couldn't believably be 3.5 mm scale or 4mm scale or anywhere in between.

 

Stick to real numbers. You'll have much better looking models.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

6 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

There is not much compromise needed:

 

1. buy some of the very fine 00 RTR models now available.

 

2. measure their wheels.

 

3. build the most suitable track for them to run on.

 

For current RTR models, that would be about 16.3mm track gauge with 1.1mm flangeways.

 

However, in order also to run the finer wheels found in model kits, it's worth compromising a bit on that:

 

1. make the track a bit narrower at 16.2mm track gauge with 1.0mm flangeways,

 

 and accept that:

 

2. you may need to check that wheel back-to-backs are within limits (14.3mm - 14.4mm), and

 

3. add some gauge-widening, up to a maximum of 16.5mm track gauge, on very sharp curves.

 

That's not a lot of compromise, and the result will be good-looking track and smooth running through pointwork.

 

Martin.

 

The first is achievable using NMRA HO Standard dimensions, but you don't need to tear up your existing turnouts to hand lay narrow gauge ones. Which is one reason why HO dimensions are so widely used and overwhelmingly  popular. See my earlier posting of the dimension diagram, if it still exists.

 

The second (your point 1.) is far better done with EM-2 as that would keep the same running clearances and reliability as EM  (with EM flange width wheels).

 

Andy

[Wheatley]

22 hours ago, ikcdab said:

How something looks is obviously very subjective. I build my track to 16.5mm gauge using the finescale standard... Anyway, with proper sleeper sizes and spacing and the finer code 75 rail, I think it looks pretty good. 

Same, although I cheat and use Code 75 points with bullhead track, I'll replace them if and when Peco get round to doing the rest of the Streamline range on BH. 

 

I know the track is too narrow but I accept the compromise because it saves time I can then spend on things which bother me more.