EM/P4 forum

[Bernard Lamb]

 

 

I just think it is hugely unfortunate that there is such expectation attached to P4.

It is not a case of fortunate or unfortunate or any place in between.

It is simply making a decision to work to one place of decimals or two.

The rest just follows.

Bernard

[beast66606]

It is not a case of fortunate or unfortunate or any place in between.

It is simply making a decision to work to one place of decimals or two.

The rest just follows.

Bernard

 

I also model in 16.50 ... 

[martin_wynne]

Martin !! please !! - not "daft" .... and you wonder why with such remarks that those vast number of railway modellers (way outnumbering EM and P4 put together) get upset and feel there is some form of elitism.

 

Hi Kenton,

 

But it is daft to run 00 gauge models on H0 track. The fact that Peco make it easy to do so doesn't stop it from being daft. Proper 00 gauge track is available from SMP Scaleway, C&L, Exactoscale and others. I don't see what is elitist in saying so.

 

You were the one who said 00 gauge is not prototypical. I pointed out that it is prototypical -- you just need to specify the prototype.

 

All 00 gauge RTR models are 4mm/ft scale models of 4ft-1.5in gauge prototypes. As such they are fine models. All anyone has to do is build 4mm/ft scale 4ft-1.5in track for them to run on and a superb model can result -- see for example Eastwood Town from Gordon S of this parish, and many others. Yes this is 00 gauge:

 

 

 

 

Running them instead on 3.5mm/ft scale 4ft-8.5in track looks daft and is daft. There is nothing to be gained by pretending otherwise. But each to his own if that's what you want.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[truffy]

Thank you, Martin. That's a new dimension that hadn't occurred to me.

Proper 00 gauge track is available from SMP Scaleway, C&L, Exactoscale and others.

And where does Hornby's track fit in this, or should I just get my coat now?

[Grovenor]

All 00 gauge RTR models are 4mm/ft scale models of 4ft-1.5in gauge prototypes.

Can you find one example of a 4'-1.5" gauge prototype with 7.5" thick wheels that has been modelled in 4mm scale?

 

Otherwise this is just another way of saying that the 00 models are not to scale in respect of track and wheel dimensions for the prototypes they claim to represent.

 

It can equally be said that Peco track is a scale model of a prototype that uses very large rails set at 4'-1.5" gauge on thin sleepers set closely together and is not H0 track at all.

 

Why not just accept 00 for what it is?

 

Regards

Keith

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

Evenin' all,

 

It is better for all of us that a variety of trackwork options are available within the same scale, as this allows each modeller to work to their own preferences. There is no right or wrong choice....I vote to keep all 4mm gauges 'under one roof'.

 

Dave

[martin_wynne]

Can you find one example of a 4'-1.5" gauge prototype with 7.5" thick wheels that has been modelled in 4mm scale?

 

Hi Keith,

 

I didn't say such prototypes exist. I simply said that is what RTR models are a model of. Such prototypes could easily exist -- the independent locomotive builders such as Hunslet would happily quote for any track gauge the customer specified. At one time sensible freelance models were a respected form of model engineering, it is sad that the tradition has been lost.

 

On the other hand:

 

 

 

It can equally be said that Peco track is a scale model of a prototype that uses very large rails set at 4'-1.5" gauge on thin sleepers set closely together

 

would be an engineering nonsense and no railway would do such a thing. The sleepers would be too small to carry the load and would look like matchsticks under the rolling stock, and the rails would be an uneconomical waste of steel and expensive to fabricate for switches and crossings.

 

00 gauge isn't perfect but it has a long tradition and has seen some fine model railways. The tragedy is that all that has been forgotten because Peco established the daft idea of running 00 gauge models on H0 track, and have become so dominant in the market place over the last 50 years that many modellers are unaware of what true 00 gauge looks like. There is a common perception that to improve on Peco the only alternatives are EM and P4.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

Thank you, Martin. That's a new dimension that hadn't occurred to me.

And where does Hornby's track fit in this, or should I just get my coat now?

 

 

It doesn't.  I presume that most or almost all of Hornby's track sales are to the train set market, not to modellers. Certainly the vast majority of OO modellers seem to use Peco - and a very large majority of those use some form of Streamline, not Setrack

 

I very much agree that something better than Peco Streamline is available for OO, in the form of SMP and C+L flexible track, or for modern concrete sleeper, the Exactoscale Fastrack (In fairness Peco's new code 75 concrete sleeper flexible track seems to have a little longer sleepers to a slightly greater spacing, and does look more British than their existing wooden sleepered flexible track)  . The difficulty remains the points, which still have to be handbuilt - at least in visible areas

 

To be honest I'm not quite sure what Peco Streamline actually represents. It's not British track , in either HO or OO - the sleepers are too short and tightly packed even in HO; it's not American track (compare their code83 range). Code 75 is probably passable as NSW track (right gauge, rail section, sleeper material) but I'm not sure either way about Continental

 

truffy

 

but you could equally ask what the point is of scratch-building a station and then running OO track through it. or what the point is of prototypical operation and functioning signals with tension-lock couplings, or having handbuilt locos and stock which is not prototypically weathered.

 

 

 

 

Proper OO track can look pretty good - it's an old joke among OO modellers that if you have handbuilt track people will start asking you if your layout's EM. I can think of at least three very highly regarded major layouts with threads on this forum (try p2 of layout threads) which fall into exactly that category, though if you used Streamline code 100 it would certainly let down the rest of the layout.

 

It's the casual equations "OO= Streamline code 100 deadfrog"  "OO modellers don't make stuff" that grate. I'd rather not see a seperate forum section because I don't want to be pushed into that kind of ghetto

 

I can imagine someone basically interested in prototypical operation using tension locks for convenience (the modern slim line variety are much less obtrusive) and can think of one highly skilled modeler who does use them. But I don't recall anyone ever doing so in P4 or even EM.  And there will certainly be those who argue that pregrouping everything was immaculate and so the correct weathering is nil...

[Grovenor]

Hi Keith,

 

I didn't say such prototypes exist. I simply said that is what RTR models are a model of.

To say that they are models of something implies that the something exists, which it doesn't.

Such prototypes could easily exist -- the independent locomotive builders such as Hunslet would happily quote for any track gauge the customer specified. At one time sensible freelance models were a respected form of model engineering, it is sad that the tradition has been lost.

It has not entirely been lost, there are still some around.

On the other hand:

 

 

 

 

would be an engineering nonsense and no railway would do such a thing.

no more of an engineering nonsense than the fat wheels and large flanges on your prototype loco!

The sleepers would be too small to carry the load and would look like matchsticks under the rolling stock, and the rails would be an uneconomical waste of steel and expensive to fabricate for switches and crossings.

But rails equivalent to code 100 have been used in the USA with closely spaced sleepers not far from Peco's chosen dimension, I don't think it stretches reality any more than your non-existant prototype trains.

00 gauge isn't perfect but it has a long tradition and has seen some fine model railways. The tragedy is that all that has been forgotten

As I said, just accept 00 for what it is, a compromise for good practical reasons, it does not need a mythical prototype to justify it. And fine modelling in 00 is not forgotten, there is lots of it about, not least on this forum, and you posted a photo of one excellent example just a few posts back.

because Peco established the daft idea of running 00 gauge models on H0 track, and have become so dominant in the market place over the last 50 years that many modellers are unaware of what true 00 gauge looks like. There is a common perception that to improve on Peco the only alternatives are EM and P4.

All depends on what degree of improvement each individual is happy with, and don't blame Peco, they were, after all a big improvement on what went before, and the customers bought their offerings in preference to the available competition.

Regards

Keith

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

just accept 00 for what it is, a compromise for good practical reasons, it does not need a mythical prototype to justify it.

 

Hi Keith,

 

The point I was trying to make is that it is all about perceptions. Is the model wrong? Or is it a correct model of the wrong prototype?

 

BR didn't actually build any 08 shunters with the wheels set to 4ft-1.5in track gauge. But they could have done. And whether they did or didn't is a bit academic if you've got a nice 4mm/ft scale model of one sitting in your hand.

 

And given that you have got one in your hand, there seems to be two options for what to do with it:

 

1. convert it to run on 4ft-8.5in track.

 

2. build some 4ft-1.5in track for it to run on.

 

Both are valid options and can produce a fine model railway.

 

However, the third option -- run it on track of a different gauge built to a different scale -- is self-evidently a daft thing to do and is never going to look right.

 

Martin.

[truffy]

I vote to keep all 4mm gauges 'under one roof'.

But where is that roof? Not only is there no EM/P4 forum, there is no (specific) 4mm forum, yet there are for 2mm, 3mm, 7+mm etc.

So does that mean that 4mm goes 'anywhere, who cares?'

[Jol Wilkinson]

Proper OO track can look pretty good - it's an old joke among OO modellers that if you have handbuilt track people will start asking you if your layout's EM. I can think of at least three very highly regarded major layouts with threads on this forum (try p2 of layout threads) which fall into exactly that category, though if you used Streamline code 100 it would certainly let down the rest of the layout.

 

It's the casual equations "OO= Streamline code 100 deadfrog"  "OO modellers don't make stuff" that grate. I'd rather not see a seperate forum section because I don't want to be pushed into that kind of ghetto

 

I can imagine someone basically interested in prototypical operation using tension locks for convenience (the modern slim line variety are much less obtrusive) and can think of one highly skilled modeler who does use them. But I don't recall anyone ever doing so in P4 or even EM.  And there will certainly be those who argue that pregrouping everything was immaculate and so the correct weathering is nil...

 

Ravenser,

 

I agree that OO track can look pretty good. I remember seeing three OO layouts at York some years ago where the locos, stock buildings, etc. where all to a very similar standard, but one stood out because the track and lineside detail had been very well modelled.

 

Probably the majority of OO modellers buy RTR locos, carriages, wagons, buildings, signals and track to create their layouts. So it's easy too see where the view that they don't actually make stuff comes from.

 

However, this is a generalism, just like so many of those hoary old statements that get trotted out about P4 modelllers, etc. As usual, a thread including P4/EM has become an argument about what is right and wrong, rather than getting some enjoyment about following a particular modelling path.

 

I enjoy and get satisfaction from modelling the Edwardian LNWR on 18.83 gauge track. It seems that there is no hope for me then.

 

Jol

[Craigw]

In my opinion, the reason given by Andy Y for the lack of a EM or P4 forum is valid. But equally so, there are obviously people on this forum who want to ask opinions and contemplate things before they go down the society path, if indeed they want to join a society. 

 

So under those circumstances, and with 2mm scale and 7mm scale forums existing I cannot see a reason for there not to be a EM and/or P4 forum. The only down side is that I can say with near 100% certainty that someone would come into a P4 forum to argue just because they can.

 

Any thread on P4 would stand as a witness to that.

 

Craig W

[queensquare]

In my view if you want to start a thread on the particular merits, problems and issues raised by modelling in 4mm to one of the wider gauges then you should go ahead and do it. The issue of the so called 'gauge wars' only really exist in the imagination of a vocal minority who seem to leap on any mention of a comparison between OO/EM/P4 to whinge about elitism. We are all big boys and girls playing trains - none is more valid than another. If you wish to do it in a slightly different way to the next person and would like a thread to discuss the issues then why not - fill yer boots!!

 

Jerry

[Bernard Lamb]

 The only down side is that I can say with near 100% certainty that someone would come into a P4 forum to argue just because they can.

 

 

As good a reason as any why there is no such animal on here.

Bernard

[Craigw]

As good a reason as any why there is no such animal on here.

Bernard

 

With respect Bernard that is not a valid reason.

 

If people are not interested in P4 or EM modelling or matters relating to it then all they have to do is not go near such a forum. 

 

Craig

[clecklewyke]

In the first instance, I might get so EM and P4 track and mess about with a small diorama.

 

 

There is a current scheme in the Scalefour Society to promote the building of small dioramas, called the Standard Gauge Workbench. The rather loose criteria are that the length of the scenic section of the layout should be no more than 4'8.5" long and that it should have at least two points in the scenic section. Fiddle yards can be any length.

 

The details can be found on the Scalefour Society Forum

 

I wonder if this might be a way forward for you?

 

Ian

[martin_wynne]

Why not have arguments about 00, EM and P4? RMweb is a forum. No-one is under the slightest obligation to read them if they don't want to. If some members say things which others find "elitist" so what? Write a reply in a contradiction if you feel strongly about it. We can have a lively debate without coming to blows or being nasty to one another. But it's all just toy trains in the end so it doesn't actually matter if we come to fisticuffs about it -- quite funny really.

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

We can have a lively debate without coming to blows or being nasty to one another. 

 

Some people can't quite manage it though Martin which sparks a reaction (why they do it?).

 

There was an earlier suggestion for a 'Finescale' area which I'm musing over although that's quite grey at times anyway and tends to attract much of the same angst.

[Wellyboots]

But where is that roof? Not only is there no EM/P4 forum, there is no (specific) 4mm forum, yet there are for 2mm, 3mm, 7+mm etc.

So does that mean that 4mm goes 'anywhere, who cares?'

 

The short answer is that the roof is RMWeb: The majority of modellers in the UK model in 4mm scale, so do they really need a special sub-forum as most of the posting on the forum will be about 4mm modelling. The other scales are minority interest groups so I guess it was decided that sub-forums for them would be helpful, but a lot of the actual modelling content from these scales is posted in the general sections of the forum.

 

The problem is about finding information on a specific subject and the only real way that can be achieved is by effort; by looking and by possible even asking for a little help and isn't that the whole point of forums?

[martin_wynne]

EM, P4, finescale 00 all have one thing in common -- they require handbuilt track. We already have a handbuilt track sub-forum at: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/160-handbuilt-track-templot/

 

At present that mainly covers actual track building, and all scales. But it could be widened to include discussions about finescale modelling generally. Perhaps the title could be changed to something more general -- "Modelling with handbuilt track" perhaps.

 

That would avoid creating a new forum, with arguments about whether we should have one.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

EM, P4, finescale 00 all have one thing in common -- they require handbuilt track. We already have a handbuilt track sub-forum at: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/160-handbuilt-track-templot/

 

At present that mainly covers actual track building, and all scales. But it could be widened to include discussions about finescale modelling generally. Perhaps the title could be changed to something more general -- "Modelling with handbuilt track" perhaps.

 

That would avoid creating a new forum, with arguments about whether we should have one.

 

Martin.

 

Possibly what might meet requirements is a special interest group "Rolling Stock Gauge Conversions" to cover rewheeling, new chassis etc. But to be honest I suspect it would be rarely used, poorly visited and would tend to ghettoise the content, as well as creating unnecessary fragmentation of the forum 

[Porco Rosso]

The groups so far set up seem to me to be fairly specialised and relatively easy to define. Finescale is highly nebulous. Having separate P4 and EM groups would fragment what is essentially just 4mm modelling. Much P4 stuff is on their own excellent forum. One reason why the 2mm forum is so popular, I suspect, is that 2mm don't have a proper dedicated forum of their own.

 

Special Interests

1. 2mm Finescale

1. 3D Printing, Laser Cutting & CAD Group

1. 3mm

1. 7mm+ modelling

1. Boxfiles, Micro layouts & Dioramas

1. Building large layouts

1. Class 37 Group

1. Class 47 Group

1. Class 55 Group

1. Collectable/Vintage

1. Computer Control

1. DCC Sound

1. Diesel Hydraulic Group

1. Disused Railways

1. Electrification

1. Feedback Group

1. GWR Rolling Stock: model and prototype

1. Handbuilt Track & Templot

1. LMS Coaching Stock

1. London Underground

1. Modelling BR Blue

1. Modelling real locations

1. Narrow Gauge Modelling & Prototype

1. North & West London DC & GOB Lines

1. O Gauge Modular Group

1. Outdoor Model Railways

1. Photography

1. Pre-Grouping - Modelling & Prototype

1. Radio Control

1. Railways of Scotland

1. Railways of the North West in 50s/60s

1. Road Vehicles Group

1. S Scale 1:64

1. Settle & Carlisle route

1. Somerset & Dorset Joint Railway Group

1. Southern Electrics

1. Southern Railway Group

1. T-Gauge

1. The Railways of Cornwall

1. The railways of Devon

1. The Railways of Gloucestershire and the Forest of Dean.

1. The Waverley Route

1. The Woodhead Route

1. Trams & Tramway Modelling

1. Transition Diesel Liveries

1. UK Standard Gauge Industrial

[Kenton]

 

Hi Kenton,

 

But it is daft to run 00 gauge models on H0 track.

It is the language use that is so inflamatory and to what I object. Not the fact that it looks unlike the prototype.

 

Most railway modellers start out with OO and start out with RTR locos and Peco/Hornby track. I would guesstimate that most stay with that through many layouts and years of enjoyment of the hobby. It might not be correct prototypically (and you know full well by prototype I am not referring to obscure NG or continental gauge) but it is what the model industry has chosen for us. A very good representation of a UK prototype loco in 4mm running on track that is not even a very good representation of UK track in 3.5mm scale.

 

There are several modellers who endeavour to improve this - that is great - but I cannot ever see it becoming the default Xmas train set that starts most into the hobby. The RTR stock (steam locos in particular) are compromised to run effectively NG - that might be noticeable by many but is an accepted compromise by many - it doesn't seem to make sense but is not "daft". It is just another one of those compromises we all make.

 

Perhaps we should go up to all modellers P4 included and call them "daft" for those electric motors we put in the locos (especially steam) or the "daft" DCC control systems that are nothing like the driver and firemen?

 

Perhaps we are all equally "daft" and deserve to be painted that way by the press?

[martin_wynne]

 

 

But it is daft to run 00 gauge models on H0 track.

 

It is the language use that is so inflammatory and to what I object.

 

I don't see what is so inflammatory about it. Even my best friends call me daft.

 

But for the sensitive souls I will rephrase it: It is a daft idea by the model trade to run 00 gauge models on H0 track instead of proper 00 gauge track.

 

Martin.