Ever Regretted Using 00?

[Jon_Eng]

Only that I didn't change from OO to N sooner... 10+ HAAs plus a 56 or 66 on a tail-chaser over about 3x2 in N.

[edcayton]

To me the problem is that Peco is flat-bottomed rail. For steam or transition era I'd like to use bullhead, which means DIY of some kind. I don't know if it is any harder to make EM or P4 track than 00 (I have tried building 00 and not got on well), but as has been said converting steam loco's is a LOT harder.

Jim's pic clearly shows P4 in the best light, but if you are building a roundy you may not see an "end-on" view of the track so the gauge may not be so important. Also, having the layout at a good height will help.

As people have said, try it and see. You can always build your big roundy with streamline and a small planky thing in EM or P4 at the same time.

Or you could build a small O gauge layout.........

 

Ed

[Chuntybunt]

 

 

Its your couplings that dictate your curves with diesel locomotives not the track gauge. If a class 25 goes happily around a 1st radius curve in 00 it will do exactly the same in P4.

 

 

 

Hi Jim, Just when I had convinced myself that I would have to go for 00 because I couldn't get anything else round my small curves. I may just have to buy a small amount of each type and get a feel for which I prefer and just how long it takes to build the points.

[Kenton]

The difference is that the gap between running and check rails in P4 is less than the width of the rail head, like the real thing. In EM its the other way round. Once you know this difference its very obvious and makes EM look more like 00 than p4.

 

HTH

 

Jim

I've been told that before but still cannot see it without getting my nose close to the track. I view track from a "reasonable viewing distance" and look at track overall rather than just the points. Perhaps as an exponent of P4 you can see it more obvious than I. But given a layout in EM and one in P4 to me they are essentially the same.

[coachmann]

I think fidelity to scale has come to prominance since the advent of the digital camera. Track-level viewpoints are the norm these days and have encouraged people to try harder or become completely demoralized!

 

If a modeller really wants everything on his layout to look look just like the real thing, then P4 is part of the answer. I think one must beware of the old blind eye though, like getting some things correct and ignoring others. The incorrect things could relate to signalling, lack of knowledge of railway operations, or simply running a loco no matter how improbable just because its your railway.

 

For what it's worth, I'm keen on accuracy but my weakness is compromise and so I am is perfectly at home with '00', RTR and auto couplings.

[halfwit]

Following on from Coach's post I've always viewed P4/S4 as an approach rather than a set of wheel and track standards. An approach where perfection in all aspects is the aim, total realism. By all apects I mean not just the rolling stock but the infrastructure, signalling, operation, surroundings (everything non-railway) etc. Jim S.W.'s Birmingham New Street is a good example to my mind. Personally I'm happy to compromise on some aspects which is why I'm happy with EM.

Just my personal point of view though.

[Guest notascoobie]

Hi there,

 

Part of the decision has to be what you plan to do on your layout. Up and down plank with 4 points -then it's got to be P4. If you want to be able to actually run trains, then it's EM.

 

I've had the privilege to operate a number of top notch EM layouts. On one, the riposte to any sneering from the P4 armchair brigade was to reverse a 40 van train across a set of facing pointwork. "Try that in P4" was the invitation from one of the layout's builders. It stands to this day. You can't scale down the laws of physics. The weight of rolling stock would have to be vastly greater than we use in 4mm scale for it to work like the real thing. A loaded 10T van might gross out at, say 15 tons. How do you scale that? 15*(1/76*1/76)= 0.0026 tons, or 5.8lb. Most modellers measure their 4mm scale wagons in ounces.

 

I know I'm going to get shreddeed, so I'll put on my tin hat and take cover.

 

Regards,

 

Vernon

[bike2steam]

A loaded 10T van might gross out at, say 15 tons. How do you scale that? 15*(1/76*1/76)= 0.0026 tons, or 5.8lb. Most modellers measure their 4mm scale wagons in ounces.

 

I know I'm going to get shreddeed, so I'll put on my tin hat and take cover.

 

Regards,

 

Vernon

 

Ah, you live in a 2 dimensional world eh ?, try dividing by another 76.

[Guest notascoobie]

Aha, I got it wrong, nothing new there. Well, please enlighten me and relate that to the performance of scale rolling stock. If it all scales down right, including weight, surely, scale flanges would work. But when there's more than, say 15 wagons, it doesn't work.

 

I have seen a few P4 layouts that work really well and I have an immense admiration for the guys that can make it happen. I know I couldn't achieve those levels of engineering expertise. But, I still havn't seen the 40 van facing pointwork thing work in P4.

 

Have I been looking in the wrong direction?

 

Regards,

 

Venon

[David Bigcheeseplant]

Aha, I got it wrong, nothing new there. Well, please enlighten me and relate that to the performance of scale rolling stock. If it all scales down right, including weight, surely, scale flanges would work. But when there's more than, say 15 wagons, it doesn't work.

 

I have seen a few P4 layouts that work really well and I have an immense admiration for the guys that can make it happen. I know I couldn't achieve those levels of engineering expertise. But, I still havn't seen the 40 van facing pointwork thing work in P4.

 

 

I have, both Chris Pendlenton and Mike Wakefields layouts propel long trains through cross overs in P4, there have been articles about it in MRJ

 

David

[Coombe Barton]

Isn't this argument developing into one of how much patience you have? Do you have the patience to do it to scale? It's not so much the native skill as the desire to accept as little compromise as possible.

[Guest notascoobie]

David,

 

Thanks for pointing out some of the finest running around. I saw North Shields at the MRJ show and have since seen Chris' magnificent stock running at Mike Wakefield's. Absolutely at the pinnacle of 4mm scale model engineering and far beyond anything I could achieve. However, while the running was exemplary, I stand by assertion that I have yet to see the 40 van facing pointwork thing done in P4.

 

It might be signifcant that the layouts you mention are not out on the exhibition circuit. The owner of one of the finest exhibited P4 layouts I know reflects openly on the difficulty of keeping the trackwork in order when faced with the rigour of the circuit.

 

Regards,

 

Vernon

[roger440]

I have had similar thoughts about when i build my layout.

 

The thing that strikes me, is that if you go P4 for example and worry about the difference, to my mind, you then must model everything else to a similar level of accuracy. If you dont, then why are you doing it?

 

I also think the scale of what your building must influence your choice. I know my layout will be big, but to do so to a level such as that being built by Jim, would actually me take longer than i have left on this earth. And im "only" 40!

 

Id rather get something built and completed to a resonable level in say 5 years, than try for perfection. Nonetheless, it wont be PECO code 100!

 

For me something achived on this, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/28198-bradfield-gloucester-square-br-1962-ish/ would be fantastic for me. Streets ahead of bog standard peco, but without the need to ###### about with stock - and lots of it!

 

If i was building a plank with 3 locos however, it might be different!

[roger440]

Isn't this argument developing into one of how much patience you have? Do you have the patience to do it to scale? It's not so much the native skill as the desire to accept as little compromise as possible.

 

I think this is what i was trying to say!

[Guest jim s-w]

Probably says more about the lack of large enough P4 layouts than anything else.

 

I would say that buffing forces are more to do with any form of derailments than wheel standards and unless your 40 wagon train really was on the verge of disaster it would have done EXACTLY the same thing on a P4 layout. Having exhibited both and experienced pushing trains on both I dont see any differences TBH.

 

Was the 40 wagon train running smoothly or lurching around? If it was running smoothly then exactly how much of the flange of each wheel was actually in contact with the rail head? The extra flange on an em wheel doesnt actually touch anything when an EM vehicle is running properly.

 

I would put money on the same train on the same geometry pointwork would do the same thing regardless of wheel standards

 

Fact is the chaps on Mostyn regularily propel trains longer than that into their yard though more complex pointwork than a facing crossover.

 

Like I said at the start its more to do with the size of the layout than anything. You have yet to see a 40 wagon train proppeled in that fashion on a p4 layout - fair enough. How many times have you seen it attempted and failed?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest jim s-w]

Isn't this argument developing into one of how much patience you have? Do you have the patience to do it to scale? It's not so much the native skill as the desire to accept as little compromise as possible.

 

Not for me - for me its about whether or not you enjoy the destination or the journey. I have said many times, once New Street is finished so will be my interest in it. The hobby for me as all about making things. I need to know they work, thats part of the construction process but I have no interest in running trains. If I never see the layout finished but it keeps me busy until the day I die I will be very happy with that.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[kipford]

My experiences on RTR Stock:

Heljan 33 and 47 EM conversion using Black Beetle wheels = 40 minutes

Bachmann 37 using Ultrascale wheels = 10 minutes

Bachmann Turbo Star, Class 158 with Ultrascale wheels = 2 mins

Bachmann Class 158 with Black Beetle wheels = 40 mins

 

Steam locos a lot longer if you replace the wheelsets.

 

Rake of JJA autoballasters: 60 minutes (requires a bit of carving on the corners of the bogies).

Hornby Sea Cow = 2 minutes.

 

ETC ETC

 

Having built layouts in both 00 and EM and helped out with P4, if you hand build track in 00 then its no more difficult in EM. P4 sorry does need a little bit more care, although as Jim SW says non steam stock is a lot more forgiving. However if you are comparing Peco or similar to hand built, then the Peco on the average 8' shunting plank is going to take about 1 to 2 weeks to lay the track. An 8 point hand built is probably going to take about 2 to 3 monthsto reach the same state.

 

Which do I prefer? I will go for the fidelity any time, but its a very personal choice

 

Dave

[Coombe Barton]

Another thing to say - I'm in P4 because I like doing things myself (AKA modelling) and however bad it is, it's mine.

[Neil]

I've settled on EM a while ago, my choice being heavily influenced by my peers. At the time I was tempted by P4, not because it was easy but because it was hard and I half fancied the challenge. However EM won out. Before my change to EM I had built a lot of finescale OO track, I take no more care and bring no more skill to bear building EM pointwork; essentially one is as easy as the other. A good friend who alternates his modelmaking activities between finescale OO and P4 tells me that P4 is more demanding. He's pretty damn competent at all aspects of modelmaking and I'd trust his assesment. Therefore I conclude that P4 is more demanding than EM, whether it's worth the extra work is down to the judgement and preferences of the individual. One isn't inherrently better than the other, they are both different approaches as indeed is sticking with OO, itself a perfectly valid option.

 

Here's some EM trackwork on my under construction layout, Morfa.

 

[coachmann]

Some RMwebbers have said they are asked at exhibitions whether their track is 00 or EM. It probably says more about realistically ballasted and painted track than anything else, but it must be pretty demoralising to someone that has put in the extra effort of rewheeling everything, and immensely satisfying if it is in fact '00'.

[PWSlack]

There is no point in putting 4mm scale models on HO track when better alternatives are available.

[PWSlack]

.....Perhaps it might be an idea to start a thread where people upload their pictures and members have to guess whether it is 00, EM or P4...

 

OK:

[Metropolitan]

I bitterly regret ever having anything to do with 00! I can now see that from the front a big steam loco looks utterly ridiculous!

 

But when I started out some years ago on my large garage layout I, like I would guess most people, had never even heard of EM. No model shop for miles around has anything (Track or Stock) but 00 and N. And your model shop is the starting point for many. In the model press the odd EM layout may get a rare showing but basically its 00 all the way.

 

 

But there it is, I'm stuck now with 00.

 

And 00 does have some advantages. Peco track and points are very robust and are just about foolproof. And 00 does allow for tighter curves which is consideration if space is limited. Some of the best layouts I have ever seen have been 00; for instance the magnificent Bath Green Park. And it's much cheaper to model in 00.

 

To kick EM into the mainstream some one needs to manufacture RTR points at a price competitive with the 00 stuff ?

[edcayton]

That'd be 00 then? (runs away)

 

Ed

[Dave777]

Hmmm, thread going off course a bit maybe...?

 

 

My personal view (because, let's face it, that's what it comes down to - there really is no right and wrong way to go about this hobby) is that I can see the visual improvement with EM or P4 track, but is the improvement enough to warrant the extra time needed to build it? Or can I get to, say, 80% of that look by using Peco track and making a good job of the ballasting, etc?

 

There is also a 'contamination' issue too - does such-and-such a layout with EM or P4 track look better because it uses EM or P4, or does it look better because invariably a modeller who uses one of these track standards also puts extra effort into the rest of the layout as well? It’s a generalist viewpoint, but I don’t recall many EM or P4 layouts that had Skaledale buildings and out of the box, unweathered rolling stock - there's usually lots of high quality buildings and decent rolling stock too. The track is just part of the overall picture, and Peco track, in the right setting, can look perfectly acceptable.

 

Like others have mentioned, it’s all a matter of time and compromise – which bits of the layout overall am I willing to put more time and effort into and which bits can I live with ‘as is’?