New range of simple to assemble 00/EM gauge pointwork kits - EM B7 Prototype - First Look

[5050]

I fill rail breaks on points and plain track with a short length of microstrip (20thou?) dipped in epoxy and trimmed when the epoxy is cured. 

 

Even as a P4 modeller, I have to say that if anyone can get close enough to comment on the fact that the chairs around the crossing on a point are incorrect - then they're to damn close!

 

All this is excellent Wayne, you are to be congratulated.

[hayfield]

27 minutes ago, 5050 said:

I fill rail breaks on points and plain track with a short length of microstrip (20thou?) dipped in epoxy and trimmed when the epoxy is cured. 

 

Even as a P4 modeller, I have to say that if anyone can get close enough to comment on the fact that the chairs around the crossing on a point are incorrect - then they're to damn close!

 

All this is excellent Wayne, you are to be congratulated.

 

Or either know what they are looking at or have good eyesight

 

If its acceptable to be able to comment on a loco's detail, then trackwork is fair game

 

As for rail breaks, it may have to be one of the acceptable compromises we have to accept when making a kit without too much build difficulty/cost implications. 

[5050]

30 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

Or either know what they are looking at or have good eyesight

 

If its acceptable to be able to comment on a loco's detail, then trackwork is fair game

 

Fair comment

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, 5050 said:

Fair comment

 

I think Wayne has done an outstanding job, but unknown to him the reference he used was incorrect, as it was a typo error which never was corrected,. Its far better to find the error prior to production plus improves what is a splendid item.

 

I agree sometimes its knit picking, that's why when I first mentioned it I stated it as a observation 

[Chuffer Davies]

On 17/01/2021 at 20:33, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Jeff,

 

EM is not as bad as H0 because:

 

1. 00 RTR wheels are the same width as H0 (2.8mm) so proportionately less overscale at the larger 4mm scale.

 

2. EM track gauge is a little under exact-scale, unlike H0.

 

3. EM layouts use much larger minimum radius than the train-set radii in H0, so less axle side-play needed.

 

4. optimum back-to-back for RTR wheels on EM is 16.4mm, a bit less than the standard EM back-to-back.

 

All this means that most modern RTR models with widened original wheels can be used with reasonable success on EM. The overall wheelset width across the outer faces is only 0.5mm greater than a set of Romford/Markits. Obviously ancient Tri-ang and Trix wheels won't work.

 

Martin.

Hi Martin,  I’ve been hesitating to respond to this but reading again I think I need to pick up on a couple of points you’ve made.  

 

Whilst I agree that EM modellers tend to go for larger radius there is no inherent reason for this and EM loco’s can negotiate the same tight radius track as OO if the builder so chooses.
 

It is incorrect to specify that the optimum back to back for EM is 16.4 mm.  The B2B varies depending upon the thickness of the wheel’s flange, the narrower the flange the wider the B2B.   I build my track to the EMGS specification and for  Gibson and Ultrascale wheels I personally set them to 16.7mm B2B which appears to give me the least risk of twitching whilst minimising the risk of buffer locking through point work.

 

I’ve had this discussion on RM Web before so I’ll look back and try to find the relevant link.

 

Regards,

 

Frank

 

 

[Chuffer Davies]

6 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Martin,  I’ve been hesitating to respond to this but reading again I think I need to pick up on a couple of points you’ve made.  

 

Whilst I agree that EM modellers tend to go for larger radius there is no inherent reason for this and EM loco’s can negotiate the same tight radius track as OO if the builder so chooses.
 

It is incorrect to specify that the optimum back to back for EM is 16.4 mm.  The B2B varies depending upon the thickness of the wheel’s flange, the narrower the flange the wider the B2B.   I build my track to the EMGS specification and for  Gibson and Ultrascale wheels I personally set them to 16.7mm B2B which appears to give me the least risk of twitching whilst minimising the risk of buffer locking through point work.

 

I’ve had this discussion on RM Web before so I’ll look back and try to find the relevant link.

 

Regards,

 

Frank

 

 

Hi again...  It appears that you (Martin) and I have discussed this previously on the topic related to the launch of the EMGS RTL track.  Here is a link to where our discussion started: 

 

You suggested  the nominal value of 16.4mm B2B for  commercial wheels but in my experience there is such a variance both between and within manufacturers that it is not safe to quote a single B2B for modellers to follow blindly.  I have frequently had to machine RTR wheel sets  to thin down the flanges so that they don’t bounce through EM track work when re-gauged.  

 

I think it is worth recommending that those interested in such matters review our above discussion so as to understand how to determine the correct B2B for a given wheel set.

 

Regards,

 

Frank

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

it is not safe to quote a single B2B for modellers to follow blindly.

 

Hi Frank,

 

I don't think I have ever suggested that modellers should follow anything blindly.

 

However, modern 00 RTR wheels made in the Far East nominally match the NMRA RP-25/110 profile. In which case the flanges should be 0.8mm thick. For which at EM 17.2mm check gauge the optimum back-to-back is 16.4mm max, with 16.3mm min.

 

Earlier RTR wheels are likely to have thicker flanges and need re-profiling for EM as you say.

 

Some advice on how to set wheels for best results and a useful setting fixture, is here (add 2.0mm for EM):

 

 https://85a.uk/00-sf

 

(scroll about half-way down)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

It is incorrect to specify that the optimum back to back for EM is 16.4 mm.

 

Hi Frank,

 

I was referring to RTR wheels only there. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Martin,

Edited January 19, 2021 by martin_wynne
typo

[43078shildoncountydurham]

Wayne,

 

Any chance of buying a couple in em off to see if I can bend them?
 

Cheers 

 

Craig

[Blandford1969]

4 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi again...  It appears that you (Martin) and I have discussed this previously on the topic related to the launch of the EMGS RTL track.  Here is a link to where our discussion started: 

 

You suggested  the nominal value of 16.4mm B2B for  commercial wheels but in my experience there is such a variance both between and within manufacturers that it is not safe to quote a single B2B for modellers to follow blindly.  I have frequently had to machine RTR wheel sets  to thin down the flanges so that they don’t bounce through EM track work when re-gauged.  

 

I think it is worth recommending that those interested in such matters review our above discussion so as to understand how to determine the correct B2B for a given wheel set.

 

Regards,

 

Frank

Is it really necessary to go over an old argument on a thread about Wayne's exciting development. Lets hope there is more good news on a the release 

[Chuffer Davies]

36 minutes ago, Blandford1969 said:

Is it really necessary to go over an old argument on a thread about Wayne's exciting development. Lets hope there is more good news on a the release 

Hi,

Obviously I did feel it was important otherwise I wouldn't have done so.  I have enormous respect both for Wayne and for Martin who are renowned experts in their specialist fields.  As a keen and long standing EM modeller myself, and an active member of the EMGS, I want to ensure that anyone making the switch to EM has the greatest possible chance of success.  Wayne's new EM products will promote EM as a practical proposition for a significant number of new individuals and almost guarantee that they can now build successful EM track work, but how frustrating would it be for someone to build one of Wayne's points only to have their first piece of converted RTR rolling stock, with its B2Bs set to 16.4mm, bounce its way ungainly along the track. 

 

 Martin said: 'the optimum back-to-back for RTR wheels on EM is 16.4mm'.  After my prompting he has now qualified that this is only correct for those RTR wheels that are made to the RP25 profile or which have a flange width of 0.8mm. I completely agree with him on this.

 

In my experience in the recent past Bachman were still releasing some models with flange thicknesses of 1mm or greater for which a 16.4mm B2B would not work.  Such models are unsuitable for conversion without either reprofiling or replacing the wheels.

 

Whilst wheels with flanges less than 0.8mm can also be set to 16.4 B2B, the optimum B2B increases as the flange thickness decreases.  Mike Sharman, the pioneer of modern plastic centred press fit loco wheels, considered this to be sufficiently important to share it with me when I was starting out in EM and I'm just passing it on........

 

Frank

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Blandford1969 said:

Is it really necessary to go over an old argument

 

There is no argument. These new track products are going to create a lot of new interest in EM gauge, and what can be done with it.

 

A strange feature of RMweb is that whenever folks are having an ordinary and interesting discussion, not an argument, someone who has made no contribution to the discussion pops up to call it an argument and say that it should stop.

 

Martin.

[KeithHC]

Can I make a suggestion that the mods may wish to consider. Why not set up a new sub-forum in scale specific for EM. This could then have several topics such as Trackwork, RTR conversions and the various standards. To me this would be the sensible thing to do. I am still in the do I don’t I camp. But it would be great to have a one stop forum to look at and ask the questions like can X manufacturers wheels be pulled can you get a conversion for Y loco etc. Much in the same way there is a 2mm fs which has a topic any questions and what is on my workbench. Let us leave this forum for just views and suggestions for Wayne’s new product.

 

oh and Wayne when are we getting them PLEASE......................

 

Keith

Edited January 20, 2021 by KeithHC
Addition

[NFWEM57]

3 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

Can I make a suggestion that the mods may wish to consider. Why not set up a new sub-forum in scale specific for EM. This could then have several topics such as Trackwork, RTR conversions and the various standards. To me this would be the sensible thing to do. I am still in the do I don’t I camp. But it would be great to have a one stop forum to look at and ask the questions like can X manufacturers wheels be pulled can you get a conversion for Y loco etc. Let us leave this forum for just views and suggestions for Wayne’s new product.

 

oh and Wayne when are we getting them PLEASE......................

 

Keith

Hi Keith, 

 

So there would be a forum called Gauge Specific and within that there could be OO, EM, P4 ?

 

Wayne's B7 prototype is now in situ on my test track along with a couple of EMGS B6's. I will upload a few pictures later today.

 

Patrick

[KeithHC]

1 minute ago, NFWEM57 said:

Hi Keith, 

 

So there would be a forum called Gauge Specific and within that there could be OO, EM, P4 ?

 

Wayne's B7 prototype is now in situ on my test track along with a couple of EMGS B6's. I will upload a few pictures later today.

 

Patrick

Hi Patrick, with in the gauge specific there is 7mm, 3mm, S gauge etc etc. I see no reason why it is not expanded to cover the finer scales of 4mm so EM and P4 much as there are other forums that cover older systems such as 00 3rail. To my mind having the depth of information specific to EM in one place would be a good idea.

 

Also great to here the test track is in place any more videos yet.

 

Keith

[NFWEM57]

1 hour ago, KeithHC said:

Hi Patrick, with in the gauge specific there is 7mm, 3mm, S gauge etc etc. I see no reason why it is not expanded to cover the finer scales of 4mm so EM and P4 much as there are other forums that cover older systems such as 00 3rail. To my mind having the depth of information specific to EM in one place would be a good idea.

 

Also great to here the test track is in place any more videos yet.

 

Keith

Hi Keith,

The sub forum is t is scale specific rather than gauge specific. What would need to be added is sub forum for 4mm scale and then a subgroup for each gauge which I don't think is possible.  There only seem to be one sub level for each forum group so perhaps within Skills & Knowledge Centre we have Kit Built Track in addition to Hand Built Track with hand built being the likes of C&L, SMP etc and Kit Built being Wayne's type of product.  But I guess it is something for the moderators to mull over.

 

Video by Friday latest. Day job as well..!

 

Patrick

Edited January 20, 2021 by NFWEM57

[NFWEM57]

First images of British Finescale EM B7 fitted to Test Track. Test track has EM (outer 2 loops 34 and 32 inch), OO middle loop and 2 N gauge loops (just visible top left) but yet o be laid at the front. 3rd inner EM track coming of the BF B7 is a Jacobs siding going from 30" to 26" radius to test EM conversions.

 

OO loop has original BF B7 prototype.  EM has BF B7 followed by EMGS B6 on inner loop and an EMGS B6 on outer loop. Servo point motors controlled by ESU Switch Pilot Servo.  Track screwed with M1.4 x 10mm to allow for change. 2mm cork (B&Q 10m x 1m for £36) painted with Wickes Matt Emulsion Slate Grey.  Points section is removable.  Flexi track is PECO Bullhead for OO and PECO EM  from EMGS.

 

Wiring in process of being compete and all above board to allow for reconfiguration and selection of DCC or DC for each gauge.  Dynamis for DCC, gauge master for DC.  Separate 5V DC, 12V DC and 16V AC supplies

 

 

Detail of points

 

       

 

Once wired up will run a few conversions through.

 

Patrick

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by NFWEM57
Typos

[Chuffer Davies]

As I understand it the EMGS did consider starting an EM specific blog on RM Web but decided against it because the content would duplicate that found on the Society’s own web site.  All the topics suggested above can already be found on the Society’s web site: www.emgs.org .  As well as summary information for the general public, members have access to an on-line manual which includes guidelines for converting a wide range of RTR models, and to the club’s own trade sales where the track work commissioned from Peco can be purchased.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

22 minutes ago, NFWEM57 said:

First images of British Finescale EM B7 fitted to Test Track. Test track has EM (outer 2 loops 34 and 32 inch), OO middle loop and 2 N gauge loops (just visible top left) but yet o be laid at the front. 3rd inner EM track coming of the BF B7 is a Jacobs siding going from 30" to 26" radius to test EM conversions.

 

OO loop has original BF B7 prototype.  EM has BF B7 followed by EMGS B6 on inner loop and B6 on outer loop. Servo point motors controlled by ESU Switch Pilot Servo.  Track screwed with M1.4 x 10mm to allow for change. 2mm cork (B&Q 10m x 1m for £36) painted with Wickes Matt Emulsion Slate Grey.  Points section is removable.  Flexi track is PECO Bullhead for OO and PECO EM  from EMGS.

 

Wiring in process of being compete and all above board to allow for reconfiguration and selection of DCC or DC for each gauge.  Dynamis for DCC, gauge master for DC.  Separate 5V DC, 12V DC and 16V AC supplies

 

 

Detail of points

 

      

 

Once wired up will run a few conversions through.

 

Patrick

 

 

 

Absolutely smashing.  I was pleased to see that I could tell the difference between the OO and the EM quite easily.  If I were to go back to UK modelling, I would definitely go for EM now thanks to these kits.  Well done chaps.

[Robert Shrives]

On a "point" of reflection I wonder why we are wed to drilling for points on centre lines, the offset position might make ballasting easier and on these new tiebars - which are better than previous options it would not be necessary to have the extra material in the middle - making it even more discrete. Would it possible to provide alternatives with out breaking the bank? 

In N I have cut away excess materials on peco points or filled in the point motor slot in attempts to disguise a visible telltale.

Really looking forward to new of release of any of these  and the hope of a 21m version to help the Irish scene.       

[KeithHC]

2 hours ago, NFWEM57 said:

First images of British Finescale EM B7 fitted to Test Track. Test track has EM (outer 2 loops 34 and 32 inch), OO middle loop and 2 N gauge loops (just visible top left) but yet o be laid at the front. 3rd inner EM track coming of the BF B7 is a Jacobs siding going from 30" to 26" radius to test EM conversions.

 

OO loop has original BF B7 prototype.  EM has BF B7 followed by EMGS B6 on inner loop and B6 on outer loop. Servo point motors controlled by ESU Switch Pilot Servo.  Track screwed with M1.4 x 10mm to allow for change. 2mm cork (B&Q 10m x 1m for £36) painted with Wickes Matt Emulsion Slate Grey.  Points section is removable.  Flexi track is PECO Bullhead for OO and PECO EM  from EMGS.

 

Wiring in process of being compete and all above board to allow for reconfiguration and selection of DCC or DC for each gauge.  Dynamis for DCC, gauge master for DC.  Separate 5V DC, 12V DC and 16V AC supplies

 

 

Detail of points

 

      

 

Once wired up will run a few conversions through.

 

Patrick

 

 

Thanks for those photos it all looks very good. Especially photo 1 this clearly shows the difference in gauge. We normally only see a small section of track for comparison this really shows the difference. This one photo is making my decision to fully consider using EM gauge for my first layout just a bit clearer.

 

Keith

[NFWEM57]

1 hour ago, Robert Shrives said:

On a "point" of reflection I wonder why we are wed to drilling for points on centre lines, the offset position might make ballasting easier and on these new tiebars - which are better than previous options it would not be necessary to have the extra material in the middle - making it even more discrete. Would it possible to provide alternatives with out breaking the bank? 

In N I have cut away excess materials on peco points or filled in the point motor slot in attempts to disguise a visible telltale.

Really looking forward to new of release of any of these  and the hope of a 21m version to help the Irish scene.       

Robert, 

 

I agree and had this not been a test track, I would have considered using point rodding with remote motors.  But, if not feasible, al least putting the point motors to the side.

 

Patrick

[Chuffer Davies]

Thanks for the video Patrick. That is a very valiant first attempt and I’m sure you will get it sorted, but as  this is your first EM conversion and it is still a work in progress it was probably not a fair demonstration  of Wayne’s point work. At the moment your model is jumping in places.

 

 Is there any chance you can get hold of a better test locomotive, preferably a sprung/compensated one, so we can see how a finished loco runs through Wayne’s point work? 
 

Thanks,

Frank

 

 

[KeithHC]

Well done Patrick it still looks great no matter what. Just thinking out loud you could be modelling part of the Llanberris branch with the Padarn railway running along side......... How about a workbench thread on your EM conversions.

 

Keith

ps Wayne and further updates 

 

 

[NFWEM57]

7 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Thanks for the video Patrick. That is a very valiant first attempt and I’m sure you will get it sorted, but as  this is your first EM conversion and it is still a work in progress it was probably not a fair demonstration  of Wayne’s point work. At the moment your model is jumping in places.

 

 Is there any chance you can get hold of a better test locomotive, preferably a sprung/compensated one, so we can see how a finished loco runs through Wayne’s point work? 
 

Thanks,

Frank

 

 

Hi Frank,

 

Thank you for your comment.  If I had one I would have used it..!  This is my only EM loco at present, a mogul is part complete, but that is why I put the caveat.  This issues, back to back and pickup, will be resolved this weekend and I will upload another video.

 

In the interim,  I can upload a video of an EM converted Mk 1 coach with good back to back going through the turnout if that would satisfy in the interim?

 

Patrick