00 vs EM vs P4, Class 16 to EM

[gmortimer]

I am hoping to build an East Anglian layout at about 1958. I am toying with the idea of building it in EM. The wheel and track standards are, to me,

- More prototypical;
- reasonably accessible;
- Mechanically robust, without the need for the precision of P4;
- Compatible in scale with most detailing available.

The last point is important to me. I think everything should be made to about the same standard of detail. To me, P4 implies a level of finescale unavailable to me in my lifetime, I can't make everything to perfect scale, or with the required detail. Nor can I hope to engineer track and pointwork to the tolerances needed. A locomotive with perfect scale wheels, but oversized handrail fittings, glazing and metal thicknesses, valve gear difficult to fit while allowing tight curves off-view, and  a general impression that track standards exceed all others available in general modelling to me are offputting.  But EM, perhaps fine, with 2mm wide wheels, seems achievable.

But I am also thinking about using 00. The narrow gauge doesn't seem too big a drawback, depending on viewing angle, and PECO are going to make the code-75 finescale range of pointwork with scale sleepers and bullhead rail, perhaps.

There are some very wonderful 00 layouts, such as Charwelton.

At the outset of P4 I saw, at exhibitions, locomotives and chassis made by people who were natural watchmakers. This was 40 years ago, I am no watchmaker, though. These were the sort of people who could put a working mechanism in the clock in the weighbridge office of the goods yard, as well as make the bridge itself and accompanying balance in the office work.

Anyhow, does anyone know how to convert the spoked-wheel 00 Heljan class 16 type 1 to EM?

Best regards
Julian

[Paul Cram]

I have worked in P4 for more than 40 years and I am certainly not in the watch maker category. Modifying diesels is as easy as EM and I can't build rigid stock square enough to run so I compensate it.

 

I am not sure who you were talking about but the group of modellers I was working with did our best to make things as easy to build as possible..

Edited September 19, 2020 by Paul Cram

[Brassey]

I agree.  I built my first kit in 00 converted it immediately to EM and then went straight to P4 and have never looked back and I am as ham-fisted as the best.  

 

The challenges of building a prototypical model are not just about wheel standards but the overall look including the colours; painting and lining and transfers etc. too

 

In my opinion 00 track on "scale" sleepers (9ft pre-grouping) would look completely wrong.

[MJI]

I am going to be trying EM.

 

Hope to join EMGS and get some Peco track.

 

But sticking with 00 for my blue era stuff.

[PenrithBeacon]

58 minutes ago, gmortimer said:

I am hoping to build an East Anglian layout at about 1958. I am toying with the idea of building it in EM. The wheel and track standards are, to me,

- More prototypical;
- reasonably accessible;
- Mechanically robust, without the need for the precision of P4;
- Compatible in scale with most detailing available.

...

P4 is very much about track and wheels standards not about the rest of 4mm model railway modelling. Before Covid-19 it was perfectly possible to see layouts every weekend that achieved much the same as any P4 layout, in scenics for example, but modelled in 00 or EM.

 

If you can crack the issue of Alan Gibson wheels then you can do P4 modelling because you don't actually need compensation. P4 will work without it, I know, I do it!

 

I have spent some time trying to simplify compensation, this photo gives my solution:

 

 

 

Drive off the rear fixed axle, the middle one is independently sprung, and the leading one is rocking. This is the Comet Jinty chassis kit, using Comet hornblocks and chosen because most of the work is already done, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't work on other manufacturers products.

 

Cheers

 

Cheers 

Edited September 19, 2020 by PenrithBeacon

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

To reply to the original question, the wheels will pull out on the existing axle, or if you don't feel happy with that, then replacement axles are readily available, from the EMGS for instance, or plain rod cut to length.

 

Mike.

[Jeff Smith]

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

P4 is very much about track and wheels standards not about the rest of 4mm model railway modelling. Before Covid-19 it was perfectly possible to see layouts every weekend that achieved much the same as any P4 layout, in scenics for example, but modelled in 00 or EM.

 

If you can crack the issue of Alan Gibson wheels then you can do P4 modelling because you don't actually need compensation. P4 will work without it, I know, I do it!

 

I have spent some time trying to simplify compensation, this photo gives my solution:

 

 

 

Drive off the rear fixed axle, the middle one is independently sprung, and the leading one is rocking. This is the Comet Jinty chassis kit, using Comet hornblocks and chosen because most of the work is already done, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't work on other manufacturers products.

 

Cheers

 

Cheers 

You obviously purchased the Comet chassis and Comet sprung hornblocks so why not spring all three axles?  The motor and g/b can be fitted to any axle as long as there is room inside the body for the slight up and down and side to side movement.  I just finished a GWR Mogul using springing and g/b on the centre axle.

 

Alan Gibson wheels are hard to get square on the axles, I use a hand press which pushes the axle squarely into the wheel - it also helps to shamfer the end of the axle and use a hand countersink on the wheel bore.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Jeff Smith
Additional info

[rdr]

To me P4 is all about the look of the track, you're not going to see the wheelsets to judge how fine the flanges are or tell if the thickness is spot on, but you will see how accurate the track looks, and how pleasing it is to the eye. If you're going to modify wheelsets and build your own track, then why go to all that effort and still make it narrow gauge with the wrong sized flangeways and blade gaps.

We who model in P4, can't accept OO track or even EM, but is that your mindset, do you look at OO track and say "ew that's just not right". If so then P4 is for you, if not then stick with OO.

Modellers have proven you can make a length of OO track look wonderful, but it all fails when a point is introduced into the mix.

 

 

[PenrithBeacon]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

You obviously purchased the Comet chassis and Comet sprung hornblocks so why not spring all three axles? ...

Because there are issues with getting the correct ride height with an entirely sprung chassis and this is true of both CSB and coil springs. This method solves that problem as well as simplifying the compensation.

Cheers

[pete55]

To reply to the original question of converting the Heljan Class16 to EM, go to the Alan Gibson website and look at the guide there on how to do just this.

 

http://www.alangibsonworkshop.com/orignal-index.html

 

Under the "downloads" heading, look for rtr conversions and you should find it.

Edited September 19, 2020 by pete55
spelling!!

[Kier Hardy]

2 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

To reply to the original question, the wheels will pull out on the existing axle,

Without wishing to get into 'that' age old debate regarding track gauge, and concentrating on the OPs  question, this information may be of help (from the emgauge70s September 2013 update page) http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/model_omwb88.html

 

 

A lathe can make things easier by reprofiling the flanges to something less chunky, without the need to remove the wheels from the axles, which also reduces the amount you need to spread them, using a pin punch afterwards.  The original Heljan wheels have been pushed out on the existing axles, and although they will just fit, the bogie frames have been packed out with shims made from 0.5mm plasticard for better clearance.

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Kier Hardy

[PenrithBeacon]

Branchlines do kits for converting to EM/P4 as well but whether Branchlines have the correct wheel for the Class 16 I don't know. An email to sales@branchlines.com will tell you.

 

Both suppliers methods work well for diesels, I've used both, the issue I have with AGW wheels is to do with the steam engine wheels which are a drive fit onto axles. However I'm working on an alternative way of doing this.

Cheers

[Jeff Smith]

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Because there are issues with getting the correct ride height with an entirely sprung chassis and this is true of both CSB and coil springs. This method solves that problem as well as simplifying the compensation.

Cheers

Perhaps I was just lucky but there are ways of adjusting the height, eg snipping a coil or two to lower it or packing to raise it.

[PenrithBeacon]

15 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

Perhaps I was just lucky but there are ways of adjusting the height, eg snipping a coil or two to lower it or packing to raise it.

I imagine that there are ways of adjusting, but the way I propose above doesn't need any adjustments, the ride height is conditioned by the tripod as it should be.

Cheers

[Jeff Smith]

Going back to the OP's original question, a decision as to which gauge/system may depend on several other aspects, eg, the size of the layout and whether you are prepared to build all the points (for P4) or stick with the available single radius points in EM or Peco BH OO.

 

Are you a builder or an operator, in other words do you need to get something running quickly?  Are you more interested in running or playing about with bits and pieces to get them working properly?

[Michael Hodgson]

Not only are you going to build your own track but also are you willing to regauge all your other stock to EM/P4?  I wouldn't see too much of a problem on a class 16, but would your other stock be OK?

Some RTR stock it lends itself to conversion very easily, some of it is is extremely difficult.

 

But if you are willing to build your own track and go with EM/P4, it does have the advantage that you are no longer confined to the products of iMssrs Peco, but can build pointwork that doesn't conform to the dimensional limits of the products on the shelf.  Of course you could also do that in OO if that was a big issue for you and assuming your skills are up to it (I'm OO and I've never tried hand-built points - my impression is that it looks easier in O gauge)

 

 

[davknigh]

If you are daunted by the track work the EMGS has commissioned Peco to turn out track to EM gauge standards. Not sure if it is available yet but I’m sure a member will confirm.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Jeff Smith]

Here's the thread 

jump to the end - it has been available for a while.

[gmortimer]

Hello Everybody

Thanks for the replies!

I have built track in my youth, and was taught to do so properly by Martin Wynne, for whom I had a part-time job. We used jigs to make turnouts, blades were machined, crossings were hard soldered, machine finished and polished, the standard of construction was very high, as one might expect. I would probably use chairs nowadays, a suitable adhesive would guarantee strength, some exploratory work needed to find the right stuff. I am impressed with the quality of running of compensated P4 motive power and stock, it creates the impression of mass so often absent from what now to me are small-scale models. They seem to have shrunk as I have aged, although I have hand-assembled printed circuits with resistors and capacitors as small as 0.5mm by 0.25mm, it has not been a whole lot of fun. I haven't built a layout for nearly 50 years, but see the job rather differently now. Everything needs to work perfectly. My experiments with P4 wagons demonstrated the ability to hold the road, even if not in the way the prototype does, with very small flanges, even properly-inclined rails do not seem to be much of a help, since true inclination is worn to profile by wheel contact from heavy trains. I am concerned about joints between baseboards, although these can probably be mitigated by some serious engineering. Especially if trackbeds are elevated, which I believe they should be, since I don't want my prototype to exist in a world in which it is the lowest point in a landscape prone to flooding :-). 

I make springs, for other work, from music wire. Thicknesses go down very small, 152, 190,  200, 230, 254, 280,  305, 330, 360, 410, 460, 510, 560 microns being standard sizes readily available. the thinner stuff does not require Herculian force to make it assume the desired shape, and it would be my preferred material for fragile parts made from round section, such as handrails, although I would recommend securing it with adhesive. It looks as if it would spring buffers well, as well as wheels. I will find out, I guess.

The RTR EM track would be fine for me, but real track is of a shape which fits where it is laid, and so does not conform to the standards necessary for RTR track to make sense. Pointwork often involves curvature not easily achieved in a standard range. The layout of the sleepers is, to me, less important, but that is a matter of taste and prefered viewpoint.

Best regards

Julian

 

[Brassey]

11 hours ago, gmortimer said:

I am concerned about joints between baseboards, although these can probably be mitigated by some serious engineering.

 

I am sure the joints between my P4 baseboards have moved over the years and/or as the wood has dried and the layout has been moved around the house.  The levels may not be the same meaning slight variances in the heights between boards since they were built.  However, stock still negotiates the joins with no problems; everything being compensated and some sprung.

 

I did use the old dodge of soldering the rail to brass screws at the joins firstly to make them more robust but also to give me the option to realign if required.  So far I've not found that necessary.