EM Gauge, is it still used on new layouts?

[KeithHC]

15 minutes ago, JSModels said:

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

I agree that Wayne’s point kits is becoming a game changer. Even me being a ham fisted modeller can produce points in about an hour. Add to that flexible track and that a few manufactures are making models that either ordered in EM or supplied with EM wheel sets you can seet that EM I set to become even more popular. Maybe in the future we will see EM become the norm.

 

Keith

[Pacific231G]

Personally, I just thank the delegates at the Ruedesheim Conference of European Model Railways Associations in 1952 for not letting the German manufacturers persuade them to adopt a scale of 1:80 for 16.5mm gauge track with the resuilt that the gauge/scale ratio is spot on. That doesn't make common or garden H0 particularly fine scale (with over wide tyres there are other compromises) but at least those who adopt P87 do so in order to achieve fine scale track and wheel standards and not to overcome a gross gauge disparity. 

 

I model in H0 and don't feel an overwhelming desire to go to P87 (though I admire layouts from those that do). If I modelled in 4mm scale I think I would face a real dilemma, whether to accept 4'3" gauge track which really does look narrow or go to a more prototypical gauge and if so whether to accept a slight compromise but with more straightforward modelling or to go for virtually no compromise and accept the limitations that would impose (I'm afraid that in my case that limitiation would probably be not to have a working layout at all as I'm not that good at high precision work) 

I think the answer to Jools' question for me lies in my visits to ExpoEM and to other exhibtions where I've seen plenty of EM layouts as well as a goodly but smaller number in P4 so yes EM is still used on new layouts. There are also  many excellent and serious layouts in OO so there is definitely no correct answer and certainly no greater virtue in any one or other just horses for courses.

 

What we now call EM was of course supposed to become the norm for "serious" modelling when the BRMSB did its work in the 1940s . They originally called 18mm gauge "Scale OO" and exoected "standard 00" to become  the realm of the toy train makers. rather like "tinplate" 0 gauge. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the ready to lay points now available from the EMGS. Commissioned for sale through the Society and manufactured for the EMGS by Peco, they allow anybody who doesn't fancy building their own points to have a layout, although limited to a simple LH or RH point arrangement.

 

I don't think it is a coincidence that once these appeared, the "New members" lists in the EMGS newsletter started getting bigger with each issue.

 

Particularly for somebody using RTR diesels with drop in replacement wheels (or with a Sutton Works loco RTR in EM), building an EM layout is now easier than ever.

 

 

[johndon]

25 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the ready to lay points now available from the EMGS. Commissioned for sale through the Society and manufactured for the EMGS by Peco, they allow anybody who doesn't fancy building their own points to have a layout, although limited to a simple LH or RH point arrangement.

 

Exactly what I’m using for my new, small, EM Gauge layout although the guy on the society stores stand looked rather displeased when I referred to them as ‘Peco points’… 

 

[Allegheny1600]

44 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I just thank the delegates at the Ruedesheim Conference of European Model Railways Associations in 1952 for not letting the German manufacturers persuade them to adopt a scale of 1:80 for 16.5mm gauge track with the resuilt that the gauge/scale ratio is spot on. That doesn't make common or garden H0 particularly fine scale (with over wide tyres there are other compromises) but at least those who adopt P87 do so in order to achieve fine scale track and wheel standards and not to overcome a gross gauge disparity. 

 

I model in H0 and don't feel an overwhelming desire to go to P87 (though I admire layouts from those that do). If I modelled in 4mm scale I think I would face a real dilemma, whether to accept 4'3" gauge track which really does look narrow or go to a more prototypical gauge and if so whether to accept a slight compromise but more straightforward modelling or to go for virtually no compromise and accept the limitations that would impose (I'm afraid that in my case that limitiation would probably be not to have a working layout at all as I'm not that good at high precision work) 

I think the answer to Jools' question for me lies in my visits to ExpoEM and to other exhibtions where I've seen plenty of EM layouts as well as a goodly but smaller number in P4 so yes EM is still used on new layouts. There are also  many excellent and serious layouts in OO so there is definitely no correct answer and certainly no greater virtue in any one or other just horses for courses.

 

What we now call EM was of course supposed to become the norm for "serious" modelling when the BRMSB did its work in the 1940s . They originally called 18mm gauge "Scale OO" and exoected "standard 00" to become  the realm of the toy train makers. rather like "tinplate" 0 gauge. 

I also model in H0 scale - British, American and European outlines!

 I used to have plenty of 4mm stuff and ever since 1981, have had at least three goes at converting 00 to P4, each time with a little more success (arguably) but I never had the satisfaction I should have. After my last attempt at P4, I realised that I probably should have gone for EM as it would surely have been more achievable for me.

 I do still have a fully sprung P4 wagon chassis that does work beautifully and several other bits and bobs, just to remind myself that I can do it but only being able to devote at best, one third of my modelling time to British outline, I’m just as well off matching my other stock.

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, johndon said:

Exactly what I’m using for my new, small, EM Gauge layout although the guy on the society stores stand looked rather displeased when I referred to them as ‘Peco points’… 

 

I see no reason for them to be ashamed of using a British manufacturer with factories in Britain that really does seem to be the model  track manufacturer to the world  -and to the EMGS   (You should see the proporton of Layouts of the Month in LocoRevue built using code 75 Streamline). From all accounts (from model shops) they also seem to support their retailers rather better than certain other manufacturers. What's not to like? Oh yes, I almost forgot, they failed to limit themselves to the UK market by making H0 gauge track with 4mm scale sleepers until advances in manufactiring made that economic and, horror of horrors, they made mass market products for the "average modeller" not specialist fine-scale one.  

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, johndon said:

Exactly what I’m using for my new, small, EM Gauge layout although the guy on the society stores stand looked rather displeased when I referred to them as ‘Peco points’… 

 

 

It is only the same as something like the new Rails of Sheffield LNWR 2-4-0. If I went to Rails and asked to purchase the new Bachmann LNWR 2-4-0 they might not be too pleased either.

 

Personally, it wouldn't bother me but I can understand why the EMGS would rather they be known as an EMGS product rather than a Peco one.

 

What they don't have is a snappy product name for them for people to use instead. So people tend to refer to them as Peco anyway.

 

 

 

 

[Siberian Snooper]

As I have been collecting a number of kits over the past 10 years or so locos, coaches and wagons.  I  joined both the EMGS and the Scalefour Society, as I have for many years been a track builder, I have finally settled on EM gauge, as it gives a little more wiggle room with outside motion, which will help with my hamfistedness.

 

 

[sandra]

I think it depends on what type of layout you are going to build and how much time you can devote to it. I don’t think I’m biased as I am a member of both the EM gauge society and the Scalefour society.

 

My own home layout is EM, this is a steam era model of Andover Junction and whilst I did think about building it in P4 I quickly realised that I would not have the skill to make a workable layout in a reasonable period of time. I did however want something more demanding than OO.

 

If I wanted a small diesel era layout then I would probably build it in P4 as certainly it’s easier to convert diesel locos to P4 and observation at exhibitions is that diesel layouts have less derailments.

 

EM is certainly easier than P4 and it looks better than OO so it’s a reasonable compromise particularly if your aim is to build a large steam era layout but I must say if I was ever going to build another layout (and I might) it would probably by OO.

[Mark Forrest]

I actually think that as 4mm modellers we are lucky to have the choice of a number of different standards which we can chose from depending on what we want to get out of the hobby and how much time we have to spend on it.

I visualise it as a graph with the gauges/standards along the x axis arranged 00, 00 fine, EM, P4 and the amount of effort required on the y axis.

I think it used to be (or at least used to be perceived to be) an almost exponential increase in effort as you moved up the standards.

However I think developments over recent years (better RTR locos and stock, drop in replacement wheelsets, EMGS points, etc) have made this more linear and meant that good results in all of the gauges have become more achievable. 

The way that I see it that doesn't mean any one of the gauges is better than any of the others; it just means we have the freedom to chose the one (or more) that work for us, which can only be a good thing.

 

[johndon]

21 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Hard to tell that apart from P4, the closing up of the flangeways makes a huge difference...

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, johndon said:

 

Hard to tell that apart from P4, the closing up of the flangeways makes a huge difference...

 

 

It makes the difference between the check rail gap being the same size as the head of the rail, compared to it being smaller. I was very surprised at how much visual difference "only" 0.2mm actually makes. An added bonus is that the 18mm gauge does away with some of the excess "slop" between the flanges and the running rails, so vehicles run along plain track with less "waddle". Tighter clearances may make Alex Jackson couplings (which are fitted to some of the stock I am going to use) more viable, by reducing the opportunity for them to be out of alignment, especially when propelling.

 

The extra 0.2mm came about when Romford produced EM axles in the late 1940s and those, giving the correct 16.5mm back to back but with the really thick flanges of the day were a bit tight between rails set at 18mm, especially on curves. Thankfully, wheels have improved since then, although I might struggle to run a the Buckingham locos through it, as they still have their 1940s Romfords, Hamblings and a few other unidentified wheels, possibly Reidpath.

 

Modern wheels with thinner flanges make the extra 0.2mm surplus to requirements unless you want to run some RTR wheels opened up to EM and I don't really "do" RTR and if I did, I would be happier replacing the wheels anyway.

 

It will be interesting to see how it all works out but it may well be that any future work I do in EM will use these standards. They seem to work even better than conventional EM as the gap through the crossing nose is shorter and the wheel is supported all the way through, with no wheel drop at all.

[Zomboid]

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Personally, it wouldn't bother me but I can understand why the EMGS would rather they be known as an EMGS product rather than a Peco one.

 

What they don't have is a snappy product name for them for people to use instead. So people tend to refer to them as Peco anyway.

Everyone knowing that they're built by Peco is probably a good thing. Whilst some people might be sniffy about a mass market manufacturer being involved in EM, for someone like me who has lots of experience of Peco it builds confidence that if I wanted to, I could actually build a model in EM. It's a bit like when Skoda were taken over by VW; VWs reputation was applied to what had been a laughing stock brand and now look at them.

 

I imagine the guy I knew who thought he was better than all the OO plebs because he modelled in EM is not happy about this development, but really who cares what people like that think?

[Barclay]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Everyone knowing that they're built by Peco is probably a good thing. Whilst some people might be sniffy about a mass market manufacturer being involved in EM, for someone like me who has lots of experience of Peco it builds confidence that if I wanted to, I could actually build a model in EM. It's a bit like when Skoda were taken over by VW; VWs reputation was applied to what had been a laughing stock brand and now look at them.

 

I imagine the guy I knew who thought he was better than all the OO plebs because he modelled in EM is not happy about this development, but really who cares what people like that think?

I suspect the man behind the counter wasn't being sniffy about the points being made by Peco - they are as mentioned above an extremely reliable manufacturer of repute. I think it's more that the EMGS commissioned these points and track, they made the specifications and they stumped up the development costs. I'm sure it was quite a risk but was felt worth taking for the good of the hobby and EM in particular. Therefore they really are EMGS products, that just happen to be made by Peco.

[Izzy]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

It makes the difference between the check rail gap being the same size as the head of the rail, compared to it being smaller. I was very surprised at how much visual difference "only" 0.2mm actually makes. An added bonus is that the 18mm gauge does away with some of the excess "slop" between the flanges and the running rails, so vehicles run along plain track with less "waddle". Tighter clearances may make Alex Jackson couplings (which are fitted to some of the stock I am going to use) more viable, by reducing the opportunity for them to be out of alignment, especially when propelling.

 

The extra 0.2mm came about when Romford produced EM axles in the late 1940s and those, giving the correct 16.5mm back to back but with the really thick flanges of the day were a bit tight between rails set at 18mm, especially on curves. Thankfully, wheels have improved since then, although I might struggle to run a the Buckingham locos through it, as they still have their 1940s Romfords, Hamblings and a few other unidentified wheels, possibly Reidpath.

 

Modern wheels with thinner flanges make the extra 0.2mm surplus to requirements unless you want to run some RTR wheels opened up to EM and I don't really "do" RTR and if I did, I would be happier replacing the wheels anyway.

 

It will be interesting to see how it all works out but it may well be that any future work I do in EM will use these standards. They seem to work even better than conventional EM as the gap through the crossing nose is shorter and the wheel is supported all the way through, with no wheel drop at all.

I’ve always used finer standards to not only look better but more importantly run better, the lack of wheel drop through crossings, which I find unacceptable whatever the scale/ gauge combination used. It’s interesting to discover the history behind the use of 18.2mm. The 2mm/2FS standards also have a clearance gap - 0.5mm - which is the same as the rail head width, giving that symmetrical look and absence of wheel drop.

 

The main issue with finer standards is the general need for larger radius curves throughout, which can be restrictive for some, unless like me you indulge in pushing the boundaries of gauge widening…….

 

Bob

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Everyone knowing that they're built by Peco is probably a good thing. Whilst some people might be sniffy about a mass market manufacturer being involved in EM, for someone like me who has lots of experience of Peco it builds confidence that if I wanted to, I could actually build a model in EM. It's a bit like when Skoda were taken over by VW; VWs reputation was applied to what had been a laughing stock brand and now look at them.

 

I imagine the guy I knew who thought he was better than all the OO plebs because he modelled in EM is not happy about this development, but really who cares what people like that think?

 

I would agree with you and I refer to them as Peco points myself.

 

I was just saying that I can see the other viewpoint and I can understand why, having put up the funding and commissioned Peco to produce them, the EMGS would rather they be called an EMGS product rather than a Peco one.

 

It is one of those situations where there are two viewpoints. Neither is right or wrong, just different.

 

In the end, it really doesn't matter what they areknown as. All that matters is that they are available for anybody wanting to work in EM but who doesn't fancy building their own pointwork. They have been selling well, which would suggest an increase in modelling in EM, which may answer the OP question about anybody still using EM.

[t-b-g]

12 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I’ve always used finer standards to not only look better but more importantly run better, the lack of wheel drop through crossings, which I find unacceptable whatever the scale/ gauge combination used. It’s interesting to discover the history behind the use of 18.2mm. The 2mm/2FS standards also have a clearance gap - 0.5mm - which is the same as the rail head width, giving that symmetrical look and absence of wheel drop.

 

The main issue with finer standards is the general need for larger radius curves throughout, which can be restrictive for some, unless like me you indulge in pushing the boundaries of gauge widening…….

 

Bob

 

One of the reasons I wanted to try these standards was seeing some 2mm points being built by a friend. When he produced an E12 turnout, I queried how the huge gap through the crossing would work and he had no concerns as the wheels were fully supported across the gap. I wouldn't contemplate a point like that with standard EM but I think it might work on the 18mm version.

 

The 2mm standards do seem well thought out, with the wheel tread width and crossing gaps being a good combination. P4 obviously has a good match of wheel and track standards too. Standard EM and OO seem to have track standards from the days when steamroller wheel treads were common but haven't changed now that most of us have better wheels.

 

In EM, some folk use a bigger back to back, usually 16.7mm, to take up the slack but reducing the gauge and tightening the check rails does the same with a 16.5mm back to back.

 

As I have acquired quite a bit of rolling stock from the late Sid Stubbs and he had a very accurate 16.5mm back to back and wheels to the Manchester fine EM profile, building a layout to match the stock seemed a good idea and I am glad that I have as it has been highly satisfying and educational.

[Michael Edge]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Et's a bit like when Skoda were taken over by VW; VWs reputation was applied to what had been a laughing stock brand and now look at them.

 

 

Very unfair on Skoda who were a long established manufacturer. What really happened here was that our idiot journalists couldn't remember which Eastern European cars they were supposed to be laughing at  and wrote Skoda instead of Lada - which really were badly made rubbish.

[MarkC]

I was involved, as a junior, with the EM group of the Merseyside MRS, back in the mid-70s. I've never forgotten those days, and am contemplating putting together a small EM layout, based on Midland practice, in the near future. I'm accumulating necessary track components and have some locos & stock to hand.

[t-b-g]

24 minutes ago, MarkC said:

I was involved, as a junior, with the EM group of the Merseyside MRS, back in the mid-70s. I've never forgotten those days, and am contemplating putting together a small EM layout, based on Midland practice, in the near future. I'm accumulating necessary track components and have some locos & stock to hand.

 

The Merseyside group had a very nice EM layout which appeared in the Railway Modeller, probably in the 1960s as part of a "Mersey Special" edition. It looked like great fun to operate. Did they still have that? It had a terminus, a continuous run, then a through station which fed a reversing loop.

[MarkC]

14 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The Merseyside group had a very nice EM layout which appeared in the Railway Modeller, probably in the 1960s as part of a "Mersey Special" edition. It looked like great fun to operate. Did they still have that? It had a terminus, a continuous run, then a through station which fed a reversing loop.

From memory we had a GWR branch terminus as our active EM layout. I don't recall any reversing loop, but it was 45 years ago...

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

Very unfair on Skoda who were a long established manufacturer. What really happened here was that our idiot journalists couldn't remember which Eastern European cars they were supposed to be laughing at  and wrote Skoda instead of Lada - which really were badly made rubbish.

Successful at rallying too, but deserved or not they still had a bad reputation which being bought out by VW resolved at a stroke.

 

Similarly knowing that the EM points are made in the same place as streamline gives confidence that it'll be a well made product which you'd expect to last pretty well.

 

[Michael Edge]

Never underestimate the ability of journalists to get everything wrong - in the areas where I have some knowledge there are mistakes/misinformation/total nonsense in everything I read so I can only conclude that the same applies everywhere else.

[5050]

32 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Never underestimate the ability of journalists to get everything wrong - in the areas where I have some knowledge there are mistakes/misinformation/total nonsense in everything I read so I can only conclude that the same applies everywhere else.

Abso-blinkin'-lutely!  Haven't bought a newspaper for many, many years.  Full of total lies, misinformation, biased opinions and cr*p.

[5050]

On 02/11/2021 at 11:07, t-b-g said:

 

From my experience (I have some very good P4 modellers as friends)

Glad you said that.............................  I've only ever built one 00 layout of my own and that was 45-50 years ago (although I was involved in a large 00 GWR layout for some years in the late '70's.  I went P4 around 1980 due to the influence of some fellow members of the Wakefield club (most of whom are now leading lights in the S4Soc. - and still friends of t-b-g) and never (well, almost never.....) regretted it.