Why would one model in EM rather than P4?

[Welly]

Years ago I asked an EM modeller, why EM rather than P4 and his answer was,"It works!" 

[Siberian Snooper]

I like track building, once I'd mastered the dark art and having a load of kits to build I decided on EM as it's closer to scale, but has room to fit cross heads and crank pins. If I was a diesel or electric modeller I would have probably opted for P/S4.

 

[Jub45565]

The clearance thing is a bit of an odd one - as across the face of the wheels EM and P4 are near enough the same (EM is a slightly narrower gauge, but with a slightly fatter wheel).

 

It comes down to what we want to do, and what we enjoy doing - this is a hobby so we shouldn't really do things due to other people's opinions on how to spend our spare time.  I wouldn't personally choose to ruin a walk by playing golf, but will happily meet friends who play golf for a pint afterwards... *misty eyes*

 

I went P4, as when making the decision I was looking at a 108, Ivatt 2 tank and 3F as a base set of models. The 108 was Branchlines drop in sets for either option.  Bachmann hadn't released their 3F, so it was a London Road models kit again equally applicable to either, and the Bachmann split chassis for the Ivatt I would choose to replace either way too.  I don't mind spending some extra time fettling, and do enjoy that extra bit of detailing - so the choice, for me, was easy.

[Mark Forrest]

I think there is sometimes a misconception that people model in P4 just for the look of the track.  For me one of the reasons I changed from EM to P4 was that I was looking for more of a challenge.

 

I started out in EM because it only seemed marginally more difficult than 00, as I had always intended to build my own track.  The switch to P4 was as much about the technical challenge of getting it to work as anything else.

[CKPR]

On 24/02/2021 at 21:26, Mark Forrest said:

The switch to P4 was as much about the technical challenge of getting it to work as anything else.

 

[PenrithBeacon]

For me it was the missing 2.33mm in track gauge compared with 00. I wouldn't tolerate a boiler being short by that much so I really didn't and don't see  why the track should be narrower.

Compensation,  where needed, is simple for C&W but a challenge for locomotives.  But I'm getting there,  I've actually managed to work out how to assemble wobble free AGW wheels, a major step forward. 

[5050]

On 24/02/2021 at 13:57, Welly said:

Years ago I asked an EM modeller, why EM rather than P4 and his answer was,"It works!" 

Anything works - if it's built properly.  I've seen some diabolical OO layouts in my time.

 

And some EM ones too.................

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

No need to get personal!!

 

Mike.

[adriank]

7 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I've actually managed to work out how to assemble wobble free AGW wheels, a major step forward. 

Do please tell.

 

Adrian

[PenrithBeacon]

11 hours ago, adriank said:

Do please tell.

 

Adrian

 

First I added 0.5mm brass wire to the GW Tools Quartering Jig.

Then I placed the wheels in position

Then I assembled the jig in the vice and used a 3" G-Clamp to squeeze it all together using a back-to-back gauge to get the all important back-to-back correct.

 

That's it! It takes less time than it does to write this.

Edited February 28, 2021 by PenrithBeacon

[5050]

I've faced mine with 20thou plasticard either side of the sprung 'stubs' - but never thought of taping the wheels in position.  Doh!  One of my bugbears is the wheel falling off the stub when putting the halves together. Tthis idea should cure it.  Thanks David.

Edited March 1, 2021 by 5050

[PenrithBeacon]

Your very welcome! I think that cocktail sticks and masking tape are my most used tools.

This idea of using plasticard with the GW Quartering Jig seems to have been a very well kept secret. I would have benefited from it if I'd have known! It would have saved a lot of effort developing my ideas illustrated above and a lot of frustration with wobbly wheels. 

[CloggyDog]

On 23/02/2021 at 16:31, iak said:

Some model in both...

 

Some 30 years ago, a friend (who does post on here, so I shall spare his blushes) built an small EM Gauge exhibition layout, which I helped operate and provide some extra stock. We occasionally had wagons with the finer wheels sets drop into the four-foot, but it was only occasional and so we didn't investigate too deeply.

 

I subsequently acquired said layout and ran it for a time, before stripping it back to bare boards sometime later. Upon doing so, I realised that some of the SMP flexi was actually marked '83'... 

 

[Gravy Train]

I find that EM is the perfect compromise, in all it is only the width of the top of bullhead rail when you look at it.

If your exhibiting, EM is much more forgiving, P4/S4 are much finer tolerances and less forgiving and everything has to be absolutely bang on.

If you have exhibited a layout in EM and an onlooker asks ‘ is it EM or P4, you start to ask yourself questions and the first one that comes to light is, ‘How come they didn’t know’

Peter A L

 

[davegreenly]

Some years age, a punter in front of our layout, Manafon Mills, asked his pal, "Is this EM or P4?". His pal replied, "I think it's EM, they seem to be enjoying themselves!"

[hayfield]

On 22/02/2021 at 21:01, griffgriff said:

 

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

 

I don't think so, unless you look at one of the 00 gauge derivatives (00SF) 

 

But as said its easier to work with than P/S4 

[RJS1977]

On 23/02/2021 at 15:31, CKPR said:

I model in EM and the real question is why any of us model in 4mm finescale instead of S scale. 

 

Maths, maybe. In 4mm scale it's quite easy to measure a prototype in feet and inches then draw the model in metric (1mm represents three inches).

[gordon s]

22 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Maths, maybe. In 4mm scale it's quite easy to measure a prototype in feet and inches then draw the model in metric (1mm represents three inches).

I never realised that before. Very useful....

 

Edit: Now I feel like a total numpty as it’s 4mm to the foot, so of course 1mm equals 3”...........

 

Just never heard it expressed in those terms.......and I’ve only been modelling in 00 for something like 60 years.....

 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by gordon s

[CKPR]

20 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Maths, maybe. In 4mm scale it's quite easy to measure a prototype in feet and inches then draw the model in metric (1mm represents three inches).

S scale is even easier as 1/64" = 1" !

[griffgriff]

4 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

I don't think so, unless you look at one of the 00 gauge derivatives (00SF) 

 

But as said its easier to work with than P/S4 

Is though?
 

Ready to lay track, drop in wheel sets....and I’m not talking OOSF

 

Joking aside.... there is a consensus on here that everyone does what they do for a reason and that’s good enough for me.

 

Griff

[Jeff Smith]

I like an eye level layout.  The track gauge is not so obvious but the wheel flanges are, especially on steam locomotives.  It seems such a shame to spoil the appearance of a lovely RTR or kit built loco with large ugly flanges.......TLCs as well, but that's another story!

 

P4 wheel and track standards completely eliminate the wheel drop in points.

 

Regarding getting Gibson wheels on square I use a small press that came with various bits including one with a 1/8" blind hole that securely holds the axle for pressing into the first wheel.  Then I use a plain bit to push on the second wheel.

 

[Hal Nail]

On 28/03/2021 at 19:10, Gravy Train said:

And the first one that comes to light is, ‘How come they didn’t know’

I am convinced people just have totally different subconscious recognition skills or methods when they look at something. On any rtr model thread you will have one person saying something's shape is totally wrong, someone else saying it looks exactly how they remember it. It's not about levels of tolerance to faults, they genuinely cant see each others viewpoint.

 

I tend to see proportional differences instantly, its not a case of comparing against photos to find faults. I dont think it's just (over) familiarity as, for example, I find it pretty easy to tell two similar racehorses apart from their faces, even if I've only seen them once before.

 

Conversely I really struggle with even simple forms - my visual recognition or whatever part of the brain it is, genuinely just sees a splat of apparently random words and boxes and takes a real effort to "see" what's there whereas others could fill it in barely even glancing at it.

 

I have no idea if this is a real thing or not but it would explain how we get such polarised opinions because it would be less about what you chose to accept and more what you actually "see" (or recognise) in the first place.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Hal Nail

[hayfield]

56 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

I am convinced people just have totally different subconscious recognition skills or methods when they look at something. On any rtr model thread you will have one person saying something's shape is totally wrong, someone else saying it looks exactly how they remember it. It's not about levels of tolerance to faults, they genuinely cant see each others viewpoint.

 

I tend to see proportional differences instantly, its not a case of comparing against photos to find faults. I dont think it's just (over) familiarity as, for example, I find it pretty easy to tell two similar racehorses apart from their faces, even if I've only seen them once before.

 

Conversely I really struggle with even simple forms - my visual recognition or whatever part of the brain it is, genuinely just sees a splat of apparently random words and boxes and takes a real effort to "see" what's there whereas others could fill it in barely even glancing at it.

 

I have no idea if this is a real thing or not but it would explain how we get such polarised opinions because it would be less about what you chose to accept and more what you actually "see" (or recognise) in the first place.

 

I can agree with you on this one, in my golf playing days the best part of my game was the short game (chipping and putting). On 16 of the greens I was deadly, but the topography on two absolutely baffled me. Some golfers would hold their putters up like a pendulum to read the green, try as I may I could never see what they did.

 

In train spotting days I had a friend who would instantly know whether its was a black 5, jubilee or rebuilt Scott from distance, to me they were all dirty black 4-6-0's

 

I think with modelling some see perspective totally different to others. With trackwork many don't look downwards, resulting with a lack of knowing what it should look like

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

In train spotting days I had a friend who would instantly know whether its was a black 5, jubilee or rebuilt Scott from distance, to me they were all dirty black 4-6-0's

I could tell a Fairburn from a Stanier 2-6-4T at 400 yards but a Hall, Grange and Manor were a different matter.

[kevinlms]

On 02/03/2021 at 02:43, CloggyDog said:

 

Some 30 years ago, a friend (who does post on here, so I shall spare his blushes) built an small EM Gauge exhibition layout, which I helped operate and provide some extra stock. We occasionally had wagons with the finer wheels sets drop into the four-foot, but it was only occasional and so we didn't investigate too deeply.

 

I subsequently acquired said layout and ran it for a time, before stripping it back to bare boards sometime later. Upon doing so, I realised that some of the SMP flexi was actually marked '83'... 

 

I did the same thing deliberately with my late EM layout. I used the old Ratio sleeper bases and used EM for the straights & the 18.83 version for the curves. No problem as when curved (both gauges) tended to narrow anyway. Effectively gauge widening - easy.

Although I'll admit, I did buy the 18.83 in error.