Jump to content
 

Why would one model in EM rather than P4?


Lacathedrale
 Share

Recommended Posts

I’ve been watching some videos on YouTube and quite apart from the fact that sometimes I can’t even tell if the layout is 00 or N, often I see EM layouts about but proportionally fewer P4 equivalents. Why is this? The only thing that comes to mind is the oft touted thought that P4 requires compensation but you can just get away with a re wheel in EM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I think you answered your own question ;)

 

No that’s simplistic. There are many reasons why some choose to model to standards less fine that P4. You are correct that you can get by by pulling out the wheels from OO to EM. Also the requirements for compensation are less likely in EM.
 

My main reason for modelling in courser standards is that the radii is more forgiving and I can squeeze a roundly roundly into a smaller space.  
 

However, you can always tell a P4 layout by the flangeways.... EM and OO have identical standards and I take your point that if you want fine track then fine scale P4 is the only way but life is full of compromises.

 

Griff

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A question William, what is your preferred angle for viewing models, a) looking down from on high or b) at eye level with the track? If your answer is a) then EM might be your preference, if b) then the benefits of P4 become more evident. OTOH I notice that you model in S scale which is done with the same philosophy as P4. At the end of the day it is chacun à son gout.

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have dabbled with P4 and had fun building kits and track to these standards. The reason I do it is because I want to, so I think the answer is to just do what you enjoy doing, you don’t need any special reason or the approval of others. 

  • Like 12
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it would be easy for EM modellers such as me to say that EM is more achievable, because it is, and for P4 modellers to say it has fewer compromises and therefore looks better, because it does, but it's really just a case of what works for you personally.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 9
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

The only thing that comes to mind is the oft touted thought that P4 requires compensation but you can just get away with a re wheel in EM?

 

Compensation and springing are by no means essential for reliable running in P4. The only wagons that I spring, these days, are long wheelbase air braked wagons and that is only because I haven't yet experimented with rigidly built ones.

 

I refer the learned gentleman to the following two posts:

 

 

I shall now duck down behind the parapet and watch the stones and arrows fly over ... :rolleyes:

 

David

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that compensation/springing isn't essential to keep vehicles on the track provided the track is good enough and the vehicles are made so that all four wheels are on contact with a flat surface. To this end I stopped compensating RTR short wheel base wagons a while ago.

However, I find that I just can't get all four wheels of kit built wagons on a flat surface at the same time. I gather others find it to be the easiest thing in the world but I can't do it. Therefore I compensate kits, using the rocking iron principle, every time, absolutely every time. 

Having said that, if you want to have your model railway look as if it just flows along, like the real railway, then I'm firmly of the belief that you need to do compensation, but achieving the skills is another matter.

 

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

7 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I agree that compensation/springing isn't essential to keep vehicles on the track provided the track is good enough and the vehicles are made so that all four wheels are on contact with a flat surface. To this end I stopped compensating RTR short wheel base wagons a while ago.

However, I find that I just can't get all four wheels of kit built wagons on a flat surface at the same time. I gather others find it to be the easiest thing in the world but I can't do it. Therefore I compensate kits, using the rocking iron principle, every time, absolutely every time. 

Having said that, if you want to have your model railway look as if it just flows along, like the real railway, then I'm firmly of the belief that you need to do compensation, but achieving the skills is another matter.

 

 

Random Thoughts.   Compensation isn't necessary, as Charles Collett found when he removed the compensating beams from some Churchward locos, however springing is necessary if you have scale track.  Collett arranged for loco wheels to still take their full weight even when the the track dipped 2" or around fange depth.   Of course you may have billiard table level track, which isn't exactly prototypical, or very realistic if you are really getting down to fine details like .62 of  mm.  Springing was common even for OO back in the 1950s,   Thing is I get really annoyed by Diesels with the axle ends fixed and the compensation beams frozen. Its such a noticable feature of diesels the way  full size Diesels  compensation beams move over track irreguarities, and the way many diesels leaned out of a curve.     For me the big advantage of 18mm or 18 and a bit over 16.5mm is that many old school motors fit down betwen the frames between the wheels.  Otherwise I can't tell the difference between nice scale 16.5mm HO track and 18mm.except trains seem to fall off 18mm/ 18 and a bit more often....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you intend to build a model of a main line layout in steam days with scale length trains hauled by Pacific’s then P4 would be very challenging. Certainly EM is easier and achievable but for a smaller say pre-grouping model then perhaps P4 would be possible. 
 

I have experimented with P4 and I found that it does certainly work but it is more time-consuming and I don’t think I have the skill to anything more than a shunting plank type layout.

 

I am building a model of Andover Junction set in 1954 in EM gauge and the biggest problem has been building the points for the storage sidings which have required over 100. Converting the stock has not been a major problem. In P4 building the stock would take considerably longer and getting it to work without derailments would take a lot of work.

 

I’ve now acquired a large EM layout which is a model of Retford but that’s a different story as I didn’t build it.

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Our hobby is a broad kirk indeed. Many of us just want to run trains, and perhaps to some sort of timetable. That is achievable in OO, EM or P4 - but the timescale from start to the first full timetable day is exponentially longer the tighter the tolerances are. And when people say that P4 provides the smooth ride that the real railway enjoys, I wonder if they have ever watched a real train crossing a typical junction? At any sort of speed the loco and many vehicles lean and lurch, and the crashing noises over the pointwork can be substantially loud. Not for nothing do the P Way have to replace broken crossings! OO trains just glide by comparison. 

 

EM and P4 modellers make beautiful models on scale-gauge track, and long may they enjoy doing so. I will happily pay to see them exhibited. But OO, and other well-supplied RTR scales/gauges, get you there faster - if you can accept the compromises that may be involved. 

  • Like 10
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, there are subjects which lend themselves particularly to P4. The main example which springs to mind is that of early railways, up to, say, 1870 or so (though the exact date may be a bit fuzzy). Smaller stock and, particularly, locos, provide far less scope for hiding the compromises inherent in the coarser standards. There's just nowhere to put those overwidth wheels that doesn't visibly encroach on some other vital part. 

 

OTOH, the modeller with limited time and/or skill might still want "better appearance than 00" trackwork, and EM provides the ability to do that without having to commit to a major chassis building program if they want anything that isn't diesels and bogie stock, and don't feel able to create a baseboard that could double as an engineering surface plate. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I got back into modelling a couple of years ago, I decided I'd try either EM or P4. In the end I opted for P4 because either option would mean hand-building track, so I thought I may aswell go for the finer standard.

 

I haven't regretted the decision, but in retrospect the choice between the two isn't quite as clear cut as I'd thought. RTR turnouts are now available in EM, which I can imagine must be a significant benefit - especially for beginners. Time will tell if P4 even follows suit - but hand-building turnouts is very staisfying anyway once you take the plunge.

 

I believe EM also requires less modification of rolling stock, as the 00 wheels can just be re-gauged rather than replaced. If you have a lot of stock, the cost of sourcing new wheels can be a significant factor. However, the appearance of P4 wheels is worth the effort in my opinion.

 

Lastly, I think steam modellers may have a more difficult choice to make than D&E modellers. I'm constantly in awe of what P4 steam modellers are able to achieve, and simultaneously thankful that I don't have to go to such lengths as a D&E modeller! Small four or six coupled tank engines don't present too many problems, but to get something like a 9F running reliably in P4 must be a significant challenge.

 

 

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

My somewhat flippant remark has been interpreted correctly for a change... :biggrin_mini2:

My BR blue period stock gets the P4 standards applied. Mind, it is handy being a member of a P4 group. Drop in wheels, very few connecting rods, fairly straightforward...

The CLC/LMS/LNER  derived stock is in EM. Why? Valve gear in P4 :o! Clearances :huh:! I wish to build and not tie myself in knots. I have friends who make exquisite models of steam locomotives in P4 but auld sausage fingers here? Believe me, I have endeavoured and been unsuccessful...

You make your own choices, it's a hobby after all.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, iak said:

I wish to build and not tie myself in knots.

This is probably the crux... If you're into building rolling stock & track so that it looks as realistic as possible (and have the necessary skills), then P4 is the gold standard (of the 1/76 world at least).

 

If you find other aspects of the hobby more to your liking, then the compromises on track gauge and so on of either EM or OO are more likely to be acceptable.

 

I say that as someone whose train set is HO because that's what the RTR stuff that I'm interested in is, but who is not in the least bit bothered about the lack of detail on a 1980s Athearn blue box freight car, since I've never seen the real thing to know...

  • Like 3
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...