EM Gauge, is it still used on new layouts?

[Pacific231G]

On 02/11/2021 at 00:43, 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Was it the Manchester EM standard that was adopted by Guy Williams for Pendon? 

[whart57]

17 hours ago, 5050 said:

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

The trick is to buy a newspaper whose biased opinions match your own biased opinions. 

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Was it the Manchester EM standard that was adopted by Guy Williams for Pendon? 

 

I am not sure about that one. I know Pendon have an extra fine wheel profile but whether it was the Manchester one or whether it was developed independently I don't know.

 

Pendon has been going so long now that it may pre-date the EMGS creating standards. I am sure that I read an article explaining the history but I can't remember where I saw it and I can't remember what it said. I have had a look at the Pendon website but if there is much historical background on there, I couldn't find it.

 

I am sure somebody will know.

[5050]

4 hours ago, whart57 said:

The trick is to buy a newspaper whose biased opinions match your own biased opinions. 

Me, biased?!  Just ask any of my one time 00 modeller friends acquaintances......................

 

I doubt very much if could EVER be as biased as a newspaper editor whose main biased objective is to sell more papers.

[St Enodoc]

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am not sure about that one. I know Pendon have an extra fine wheel profile but whether it was the Manchester one or whether it was developed independently I don't know.

 

Pendon has been going so long now that it may pre-date the EMGS creating standards. I am sure that I read an article explaining the history but I can't remember where I saw it and I can't remember what it said. I have had a look at the Pendon website but if there is much historical background on there, I couldn't find it.

 

I am sure somebody will know.

According to Guy Williams himself in his 1979 book "Model Locomotive Construction" (the collection of MRC articles):

 

"Wheels

EM gauge Dartmoor. Turned Hambling to the standard Brian Rogers-Beeson profile...

The tyre width is from 2-2.25mm with a flange depth of .6 to .75mm...

Back to back measurement is 16.5mm but if tyres are thin it can be increased to 16.75mm as long as the back of one side to the flange root of the other is around 17mm."

 

Does that give any clues?

[t-b-g]

23 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

According to Guy Williams himself in his 1979 book "Model Locomotive Construction" (the collection of MRC articles):

 

"Wheels

EM gauge Dartmoor. Turned Hambling to the standard Brian Rogers-Beeson profile...

The tyre width is from 2-2.25mm with a flange depth of .6 to .75mm...

Back to back measurement is 16.5mm but if tyres are thin it can be increased to 16.75mm as long as the back of one side to the flange root of the other is around 17mm."

 

Does that give any clues?

 

Thanks for that. It would suggest that the Pendon standards are not the same as the Manchester ones. They had a standard wheel profile made using their own form tools and their back to back didn't vary. It was 16.5mm. There were no wider or narrower treads or flanges, they were all alike and very consistent. I have checked the back to backs on a good number of Sid Stubb's stock and it is all 16.5mm plus or minus nothing. The Manchester wheel is almost P4 in that it is an exact copy of a prototype worn wheel, so the flange is slightly deeper than P4 but the widths are the same as P4 standard.

 

It would be interesting to compare a Manchester wheel with an Ultrascale Pendon profile one. I would guess there wouldn't be much difference but I have never had the latter type in my sticky mitts.

[Dave John]

Heh, to answer the OP. Look at the makers of components. Peco via the EMGS, C+L and Wayne Kinney are making track. Wizard, Gibson, Markits, Ultrascale and others do wheels and stuff. Most serious kit makers allow space for EM or P4 wheelsets. There are many conversion packs available for EM. 

 

So, if they think there is a market then EM is alive and well. 

 

I'll give you a tip. Do what I did way back in the 80s. Get some track and some wagon kits. Both EM and OO. stick them on a test plank. Then don't compare them to each other, compare them to photos of the prototype you want to model.  Then decide which looks more realistic to your eye. 

 

 

[Zomboid]

8 hours ago, Dave John said:

give you a tip. Do what I did way back in the 80s. Get some track and some wagon kits. Both EM and OO. stick them on a test plank. Then don't compare them to each other, compare them to photos of the prototype you want to model.  Then decide which looks more realistic to your eye.

That's only ever going to go one way isn't it?  The question isn't about what looks more realistic because clearly that's EM. It's about what compromises you can make in the layout of your choice. For example if you need to use train set curves (even hidden ones) to run the trains you want to run then chances are EM isn't for you.

 

There's no right or wrong, only a different set of compromises to live with and you have to pick your poison.

[t-b-g]

48 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

That's only ever going to go one way isn't it?  The question isn't about what looks more realistic because clearly that's EM. It's about what compromises you can make in the layout of your choice. For example if you need to use train set curves (even hidden ones) to run the trains you want to run then chances are EM isn't for you.

 

There's no right or wrong, only a different set of compromises to live with and you have to pick your poison.

 

I was surprised to find that the smallest radius on Buckingham is around 2ft in the fiddle yard and around 2ft 3ins on the scenic section. Not quite a train set 1st radius but a lot smaller than I had previously thought practical in EM. An outside cylinder 4-6-0 and 5 corridor carriages goes round those with no difficulty.

 

Perhaps not desirable as a minimum radius from a visual aspect but it is practical.

[Izzy]

Selective gauge widening can help a lot with tight radius and especially when used for non-scenic sections. I’m currently playing with 11.4” rad in 2FS when the suggested minimum is 24”. 
 

With regard to the Manchester standards I am of the belief that they are basically - give the odd thou or two - the current P4 ones with a deeper flange, roughly 0.5mm instead of 0.4mm. I am sure the P4 ones derive from them. I’m actually using them on my current P4 plank via converted RTR.

 

Bob

[whart57]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

That's only ever going to go one way isn't it?  The question isn't about what looks more realistic because clearly that's EM. It's about what compromises you can make in the layout of your choice. For example if you need to use train set curves (even hidden ones) to run the trains you want to run then chances are EM isn't for you.

 

There's no right or wrong, only a different set of compromises to live with and you have to pick your poison.

 

There is an argument that the difference between OO and EM/P4 (or 12mm gauge and 14.2mm gauge in my preferred world) is not obvious from the side. Personally I am not convinced by that as things like how close the outer faces of wheels are to solebars and brake gear can be obvious, though that might be because of my liking for pre-Group, even Victorian pre-Group, means I am looking at stuff that was only 7'6" wide in reality.

[t-b-g]

I have had a little look around the Ultrascale website and found this, which would suggest that the Pendon Ultrascale wheel and the standard Ultrascale EM wheel are actually one and the same.

 

"What tyre profiles are used for the wheels your produce?

The 'OO'/E.M. profile used is the one developed by Brian Rogers and Guy Williams for use on Pendon, which was later adopted by the E.M.G.S. The 18.83 profile is a scaled down version of the prototype P1 form."

[St Enodoc]

31 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have had a little look around the Ultrascale website and found this, which would suggest that the Pendon Ultrascale wheel and the standard Ultrascale EM wheel are actually one and the same.

 

"What tyre profiles are used for the wheels your produce?

The 'OO'/E.M. profile used is the one developed by Brian Rogers and Guy Williams for use on Pendon, which was later adopted by the E.M.G.S. The 18.83 profile is a scaled down version of the prototype P1 form."

That's certainly consistent with what Guy Williams wrote in his book.

[JSModels]

On 02/11/2021 at 15:14, 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

 

Whilst it was on my mind (because of this thread) I went onto the EM Gauge Society website this morning, and ended up joining. Whether I get any further than that with the layout, who knows!

[duncrieviesidings]

I joined the EMGS in 1994 but didn't build an EM layout until 2001, haven't looked back since

[Mrkirtley800]

I think I am a longer in the tooth than most modellers contributing to RMW..

I joined the EM gauge society in 1966, and the S4 society in the mid seventies, so Ihave a foot in both camps.  However my layout is to EM gauge and works. I do make my own locos and of the 27 Midland and North Eastern, 12 are scratch built, and some of the kit built ones sport scratch built frames, or chassis as some call it.  All my tank locos are compensated as are some of the tender engines, and the latter have pick ups on loco and tender, so building working engines to 18.83mm gauge does not present any visible problems.

If I were starting again, it would be EM, since it satisfies me.

When I used to go to shows I saw some superb layouts in both EM and S4.  I also saw some dreadful ones.  So EM, S4, whatever floats your boat, and how comfortable you are modelling in either.

The thing is do it.

Derek