EM Gauge, is it still used on new layouts?

[TravisM]

I hope I’ve put this in the right thread but I was wondering if EM gauge was still used when creating a new layout.  I find it hard to understand it’s relevance now given the large amount of superb P4 kit’s etc.  I just think if your going to go to all that trouble to build track, points etc, in EM, would it not be better to go the whole way and go for P4?

 

Maybe I’m missing something but it would be interesting to find out if people still model in EM.

[Steamport Southport]

It's one I did consider, but I have too much 00 to contemplate a total switch over. Maybe a small project might happen at some point just to try it.

 

My understanding of P4 is it's a very difficult gauge to work with. I believe having everything compensated is essential which I don't think you need with EM.

 

 

Jason

[t-b-g]

35 minutes ago, jools1959 said:

I hope I’ve put this in the right thread but I was wondering if EM gauge was still used when creating a new layout.  I find it hard to understand it’s relevance now given the large amount of superb P4 kit’s etc.  I just think if your going to go to all that trouble to build track, points etc, in EM, would it not be better to go the whole way and go for P4?

 

Maybe I’m missing something but it would be interesting to find out if people still model in EM.

 

Won't be long before this turns into another "Gauge war" thread but yes, lots of us still work in EM and thoroughly enjoy it.

 

My latest efforts are a bit different, as I am using what I believe to be the old "Manchester EM" standards of 18mm gauge and a 0.8mm check rail gap. All my EM locos and stock go through it fine. 

 

 

 

 

  

[Wheatley]

EM is still thriving, the track looks better than OO but many  people find the slightly wider wheels and deeper flanges of EM more practical than P4. It is a good 80/20 compromise. 

 

Track building isn't the only factor, some more modern RTR steam locos can be converted to EM by pulling the wheels out slightly on their axles, which isn't usually possible with P4, and many more can be converted by swapping wheels and axles without the full chassis rebuild usually associated with P4. Of course if you can build reliable chassis in the first place this may be less relevant but I can't (and I have tried). 

 

I write as a former EM modeller who went back to OO for my Last Great Project when it became clear that Hornby and Bachmann could do Walchaerts valve gear much better than I could, and I'm a member of the S4 Soc so no gauge wars here either. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Wheatley

[adriank]

I asked the same question over 40 years ago and decided to go the whole hog with P4. I probably haven't achieved much by most standards but a fairly ambitious layout is steadily taking shape. With the gauges available from the Scalefour Society, I can't see that building reliable trackwork is any more difficult in P4 than in EM. I have built double slips on transition curves with little difficulty. All my rolling stock is fitted with P4 wheels. Much of the goods stock is neither compensated nor sprung and it runs just fine through the points and crossings. Diesels are easy to convert with drop-in replacement wheels from Ultrascale. Similar sets are available for some steam locomotives with the driving wheels already quartered and crankpins fitted. I have yet to convert a steam locomotive with outside valve gear and I believe EM provides more generous clearances in this regard. Pulling wheels out slightly may well provide a simple conversion in EM but one of the joys of P4 for me is the fine scale appearance of the wheels. The chassis kits from High Level are excellent and have comprehensive instructions. They provide a great stepping stone between simply swapping the wheels and scratch building a chassis.

 

One thing I would say is that most of us get better with practice. P4 may appear challenging but it gets easier as you go on and over the years improving my own skills has provided great enjoyment and a sense of achievement.

 

The choice is yours but I don't regret mine.

 

Adrian

 

[ejstubbs]

And so it starts...

[ikcdab]

No need for a gauge war, each one has its pros and cons. 

When starting my latest project, I had to decide what gauge to go for. As I was handbuilding track, they was no issues that way.

I decided to stick with  16.5mm because I didn't want to pull apart brand new locomotives to change the wheels. And I wanted to keep my layout such that friends could bring their stock to run. 

I prefer the look of EM/P4, but my circumstances meant that 16.5 was my option. My track does, however, perform just as well and looks just as good as the wider gauges.

Ian C

[Barclay]

The message we always 'plug' when manning the EMGS stand at exhibitions is "Achievable Excellence". Although an EM modeller I am also a member of the S4 Society but have never felt tempted to change. A small improvement in appearance for sure, but perhaps too much of a strait-jacket for a modeller with somewhat varied tastes. I might want to build an etched kit, or do a kitbash or even try something with a RTR model, or perhaps I'll buy an old white metal kit that I think I can improve and if it comes with Romford wheels, I'll use them. I think it's this flexibility that I appreciate, together with a certain ruggedness - my track has withstood 25 years in a loft that has gone from freezing to 46 degrees in a 12 month period. perhaps a new modeller contemplating the differences today would also think of the easier convertibility of RTR models to EM and the availability of Peco-manufactured track and points from the EMGS. Having said all that both standards work well enough and it's human nature to defend what we do isn't it? By a strange co-incidence this debate has just re-surfaced on the EMGS' new Forum which I will be watching with interest...

 

Rest assured though that EM is alive and well with a good number of active area groups. And at 53, I'm no longer the youngest member of ours !

[t-b-g]

7 hours ago, adriank said:

I asked the same question over 40 years ago and decided to go the whole hog with P4. I probably haven't achieved much by most standards but a fairly ambitious layout is steadily taking shape. With the gauges available from the Scalefour Society, I can't see that building reliable trackwork is any more difficult in P4 than in EM. I have built double slips on transition curves with little difficulty. All my rolling stock is fitted with P4 wheels. Much of the goods stock is neither compensated nor sprung and it runs just fine through the points and crossings. Diesels are easy to convert with drop-in replacement wheels from Ultrascale. Similar sets are available for some steam locomotives with the driving wheels already quartered and crankpins fitted. I have yet to convert a steam locomotive with outside valve gear and I believe EM provides more generous clearances in this regard. Pulling wheels out slightly may well provide a simple conversion in EM but one of the joys of P4 for me is the fine scale appearance of the wheels. The chassis kits from High Level are excellent and have comprehensive instructions. They provide a great stepping stone between simply swapping the wheels and scratch building a chassis.

 

One thing I would say is that most of us get better with practice. P4 may appear challenging but it gets easier as you go on and over the years improving my own skills has provided great enjoyment and a sense of achievement.

 

The choice is yours but I don't regret mine.

 

Adrian

 

 

That sounds like the sort of layout that would impress a few P4 doubters. Is there a thread on it or any photos you could show us?

 

Tony

[Mark Forrest]

One thing to consider is the difference in effort required to do P4 depending if you model steam or diesels.  Having made the switch from EM to P4 myself, I found that for a lot of diesel locos, conversion to P4 is (or should I say need not be) any more complex than to EM - in both cases we're talking about a simple wheel swap.

The difference in effort is greater when you start looking at converting RTR steam locos, new chassis that might be optional in EM are more likely to be necessary in P4, meaning the time and effort needed increase, making EM that bit more achievable. 

 

I think that to some extent the choice between EM and P4 depends what you want from the hobby.  Personally, I like the technical challenge of P4, but if I wanted to spend more time operating a layout than sitting at the workbench I'd probably revert to EM.

[Flying Pig]

Very similar thread earlier in the year:

 

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Flying Pig

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

That sounds like the sort of layout that would impress a few P4 doubters.

 

Do such people still exist outside the tinfoil hat community? It should be obvious by now that P4 can be done reliably by ordinary human beings, but that doesn't mean everyone has to choose to do it.

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Mark Forrest said:

One thing to consider is the difference in effort required to do P4 depending if you model steam or diesels.  Having made the switch from EM to P4 myself, I found that for a lot of diesel locos, conversion to P4 is (or should I say need not be) any more complex than to EM - in both cases we're talking about a simple wheel swap.

The difference in effort is greater when you start looking at converting RTR steam locos, new chassis that might be optional in EM are more likely to be necessary in P4, meaning the time and effort needed increase, making EM that bit more achievable. 

 

I think that to some extent the choice between EM and P4 depends what you want from the hobby.  Personally, I like the technical challenge of P4, but if I wanted to spend more time operating a layout than sitting at the workbench I'd probably revert to EM.

 

From my experience (I have some very good P4 modellers as friends) the challenge of working to the highest possible standards is what it is all about. None of them tries to say that it is quick or easy but when I see what sort of work they produce, it is very good indeed.

 

I probably could work in P4. I have the right sort of abilities and skills. But in the last 20 years, I have completed or part built (either solo or with a friend) around a dozen layouts in EM, including one with a scenic run of some 140ft and five stations. None of them have more than one or two items of RTR locos and stock on them either. Having seen the speed that my P4 friends progress their layouts at, I would still be on the first one. The quality of theirs will no doubt surpass the quality of mine, eventually!

 

That doesn't mean that one is wrong and the other right, they are just different approaches and are not intended to be in competition with each other. They can exist quite happily together without people who adopt one set of standards querying the point of the existence of the other.

 

  

[Reorte]

Well my EM building attempts only sort of work so I doubt my skills would be up to producing reliably working P4 - yet. Still really in a "first attempt" state despite having started several years ago (not got much done, it'll wait until I've eventually got the cellar in to a useable state). At some point I might give a small P4 plank a go.

 

What it boils down to is that I started doing a bit in 00, wasn't all that happy with the appearance, looked around, and settled on EM looking like a good balance for me, personally. I'm happy with my choice, works for me, and all I'd say to anyone thinking of trying any gauge is to have a look at it and chat with people from the societies and with layouts in both at exhibitions - they're all friendly and helpful in my experience. There's no right or wrong answer and there are still pros and cons of all choices.

[whart57]

In 3mm scale there is an EM equivalent (known as finescale and using 14.2mm gauge track) but no P3 or S3 as, despite occasional suggestions there should be, there is no demand for that level of fidelity. So as an outsider I have this question. Once you have the wheels and track up to exact scale representation, how far do you take that to everything else? Can you then really accept coaches where the glazing is not as flush to the sides as it should be, wagons with bolts and strapping too prominent, links in locomotive valve gear too hefty? Do you put the same effort into ensuring cutting sides include thistles, dandelions and other weeds as well as grass?

 

I'm a believer if getting the overall picture right, or at least consistent within itself. So widening the gauge to something almost right is a bit of a no-brainer. Going further than that though would require me to ask whether I have the skill, time or desire to bring everything else up to that standard. I don't, but others may take the view that creating individual items to near perfection is their aim.

[fulton]

My simple answer is yes EM Gauge is still used for new layouts, I am about to start a new layout, my first EM for twenty years, point kits and track already delivered from the EMGS, track gauges ordered as I cannot find my original ones, another member of the Kent group is also planning a new layout. As to pros and cons all I know is that it suits me. OS plan of my next project the Aveling and Porter works Strood.

[johndon]

11 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

My understanding of P4 is it's a very difficult gauge to work with. I believe having everything compensated is essential which I don't think you need with EM.

 

No compensation needed at all.  Below is a quick test on my, under construction, P4 layout with all (Including the plain) track being hand built and is my first attempt at hand built track.  The wagons in the video have no compensation or springing, they have simply had their wheels replaced with P4 wheel sets:

 

 

 

This is my main layout and will be around 40' * 16' when complete but I have also just started construction of another, much smaller, 6' * 2' layout in EM...

 

John

Edited November 2, 2021 by johndon

[t-b-g]

18 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Do such people still exist outside the tinfoil hat community? It should be obvious by now that P4 can be done reliably by ordinary human beings, but that doesn't mean everyone has to choose to do it.

 

 

My only problem is with people who suggest that we should all model in P4 because it is so easy and that EM is somehow irrelevant now.

 

 

 

[TheQ]

I decided to use EM rather than P4, because....

You can modify some stock, without all new axles and wheels, the layout under construction is steam era..

The EM gauge standards gives slightly more leeway for errors..

I'm intending to take a loop of rail out of the Shed into the garden, I don't fancy a locos chances on P4 in our winds...

[t-b-g]

13 minutes ago, TheQ said:

I decided to use EM rather than P4, because....

You can modify some stock, without all new axles and wheels, the layout under construction is steam era..

The EM gauge standards gives slightly more leeway for errors..

I'm intending to take a loop of rail out of the Shed into the garden, I don't fancy a locos chances on P4 in our winds...

 

Just when I was thinking that I bet nobody has anything new to add to the discussion, you throw in wind resistance. Brilliant!

[TheQ]

2 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Just when I was thinking that I bet nobody has anything new to add to the discussion, you throw in wind resistance. Brilliant!

Not so much wind resistance as the Locos being blown off the track because of smaller flanges..

[TravisM]

I wasn’t trying to imply that one was better than the other as all three have pro’s and con’s, more if you were starting a new layout, would you stick with 16.5 (fine scale or off the shelf track), go with EM or push the boat right out and go with P4.

 

If I was starting again, I’d seriously consider going P4 but as my hands are full of Arthritis and with my MS, it’s a challenge I can’t meet.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

Not so much wind resistance as the Locos being blown off the track because of smaller flanges..

 

I took it to mean that EM flanges resisted the efforts of the wind to derail them better but that is really just the finer points of the terminology. I genuinely congratulate you on introducing an idea that I have never seen in such discussions before.

 

Are there many outdoor P4 layouts, so people can confirm if this is a genuine factor or not? It seems sensible as a theory.

[whart57]

Getting a little off topic but I came across this story when I was researching Zeeland 1953 for the Great Model Railway Challenge. On the night of the storm in January 1953 a goods train was running round the curve at the end of the Zeeland line. The wind was so strong it was pushing the wagons over so hard that the friction of the wheel flanges against the railhead was enough to stop the train. The engine was a 2-8-0 WD loco taken over by Netherlands Railways but it couldn't overcome that drag.

[JSModels]

Timely that this subject should pop up. I'm contemplating building a small industrial layout (mainly to showcase my laser-cut kits, TBH) and have toyed with the idea of trying EM instead of OO - mainly due to the advent of @Wayne Kinney's point kits.

 

It wouldn't be anything complicated, and stock-wise it would just be a few 4-wheeled wagons and a Hornby 48DS, so stock modification should be relatively straightforward. I just thought it might be a bit more of a challenge, and an opportunity to learn a new skill or two.

 

Jonathan