Jump to content
 

EM/P4 forum


Recommended Posts

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.

But I also suggested giving it a less controversial/inflammatory name, although I can't think of one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would 'finescale' be defined?  I use OO SMP track and Marcway 3' radius points, but although I far prefer the appearance to HO track, I would hesitate to claim it as finescale.  My stock is reasonably recent Hornby, Bachmann and Dapol, with the original wheels.  I think that the big curve of the 'L' goes down to about 30" radius in the middle, although it is more gradual at each end.  On the other hand, someone hand-making larger radius points to DOGRA Fine standards, using some improved wheels for stock, the appropriate back-to-back changes and wider radius minimum curves might, in my opinion be justified in refering to their track as finescale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Don't change what's not broken - imho.

 

I've seen some EM / P4 which wouldn't be fine anything and I've seen plenty of OO which would. To judge and categorise a layout merely by the track used is very naive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favour of gauge-specific forums for the same scale because I don't see the level of demand on RMweb warrants them. If there is gauge-specificity in 'Kitbuilding and scratchbuilding', 'Layout and track design', 'Modifying & detailing RTR stock', 'Motors and drive systems', 'Modelling Questions, Help and Tips' (the last of which covering a multitude of sins), that can and should be made clear in the particular thread. I also think fragmentation would be counterproductive, e.g. a 'P4 query' on "what's the clearance between the sideframes on so and so" might be most usually answered by an 'OO person' who happens to own a so and so. Similarly, a request by an 'OO person' on what kind of axleboxes are best might be answered by the wider-gauge people because he latter tend to be more nerdish about that sort of thing.

 

A 'Finescale' subdivision is divisive IMO and gets us nowhere, as previously discussed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A 'Finescale' subdivision is divisive IMO and gets us nowhere, as previously discussed.

 

 

Quite.  There must be as many definitions of 'finescale' as there are modellers.  It reminds me of 'restrictive practices'.  When the late politician George Brown was asked to define what he meant by restrictive practices he replied that he could not but he would know one if he saw it.

 

Chris 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

So here's a possible question. Which of the existing forums should it go in?

 

"I have purchased a Bachmann GWR pannier tank loco which I want to run on my EM layout. If I widen the existing wheels to 16.4mm back-to-back what is the minimum radius it will run round? If I convert it to Markits wheels at 16.5mm back-to-back using Markits EM axles, will it run round a sharper radius or less sharp? Is there an easy way to reduce Markits wheels to 16.4mm back-to-back, and if so what would the minimum radius then be? How would such a change affect its running through EM pointwork?"

 

Please don't answer the question. I'm just asking where such a question should be posted? A sub-forum called "Modelling in 00/EM/P4" would be the obvious place for it. At present there seems to be several possible places, but none where you could be confident that knowledgeable members would see it. In the general modelling forums it would disappear from sight within 24 hours. The advantage of the specialised sub-forums is that that doesn't happen. A modeller who visits RMweb only once a week has a chance of seeing and catching up on posts of specific interest to him, if he can go to a specific sub-forum. That might be called "fragmentation" but what's wrong with that if it makes it easier to find things?

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way this has developed topic has answered the question. There is no point in having a dedicated EM/P4 forum as it would simply degenerate into what we have seen above and in most other topics where P4 is mentioned. For many who want more realistic track than Peco  OO  then EM may well be a good compromise, but it too gets dragged down thorough being linked with P4.

 

Join the relevant Society, where you will not find such disputes,take from RMWEb what is worth learning about 4mm modelling in general and in the words of the Sex Pistols "Never mind the b*ll*cks".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How would 'finescale' be defined?

As argued over many a time before "finescale" or more correctly "fine scale" is completely the wrong title to use when describing purely gauge differences. EM/P4 are gauge refinements.

 

"Fine scale" should be reserved for when refinements are applied to the whole and possibly only then for prototype modelling applied in any scale. You can have "fine scale" in 7mm/2mm or even 3.5mm. I'm not saying that fictitious layouts cannot be fine scale it is just that such layouts are in many ways more difficult to bring up to that standard. It is very much the picture as a whole - it is what MRJ is all about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 I'm not saying that fictitious layouts cannot be fine scale it is just that such layouts are in many ways more difficult to bring up to that standard. It is very much the picture as a whole - it is what MRJ is all about.

Sorry Kenton - Bevleys was fictitious in S4, Cwmafon is fictitious in OO (albeit well known EM modellers have tried to run their trains on it) ... so they can't be brought up to that standard... What standard??? MRJ included Blea Moor with it Peco track - Grantham looks fine with it modified Peco track and the standards of both are pretty high - and both of these OO layouts work well. 

 

There are great layouts in all of the 4mm track gauges - OO, EM and S4 and then again there are some which look nice, have great stock and still run like a bag of nails. So I think that there is a place for some form of "moving on from straight out of the box" but not necessarily being specifically about EM, P4, S4 etc as has been said earlier there is a lot for joing a society who works in those gauges. 

 

time to move on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are great layouts in all of the 4mm track gauges - OO, EM and S4 and then again there are some which look nice, have great stock and still run like a bag of nails. So I think that there is a place for some form of "moving on from straight out of the box" but not necessarily being specifically about EM, P4, S4 etc as has been said earlier there is a lot for joing a society who works in those gauges. 

 

So it appears we are in complete agreement then :scratchhead:

 

I'm not saying that fictitious layouts cannot be fine scale it is just that such layouts are in many ways more difficult to bring up to that standard.

 

Which part of that is talking about gauge or in any way excluding your examples?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?'

 

Hi T,

 

I was meaning 4mm gauges initially...my fear being that the spontaneity and social interaction diminishes as groups are splintered off, also the opportunity to learn (and tolerate) the preferences of others is reduced. The same can be said of separating the scales too...therefore I would like to keep the various factions interacting with each other as much as possible.

 

Dave   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Truffy,

 

Hopefully you'll be able to find this amidst all the cross fire but, If I may, I'll tell you how I got started in P4. I built a test track of about 3' length with a single B6 turnout, converted a Bachmann 08 and a few old wagons I had lying around. Dead simple and yet very useful for learning how the finer standards of P4 worked. I joined an E-mail forum (that dates me) and got sage advice and counsel from the members and never looked back. This is a hobby after all. :good:

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

Edited for dodgy punctuation & spelling

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

  So it appears we are in complete agreement then :scratchhead:

 

I'm not saying that fictitious layouts cannot be fine scale it is just that such layouts are in many ways more difficult to bring up to that standard.

 

Which part of that is talking about gauge or in any way excluding your examples?

Kenton

 

what standard do you mean ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Truffy,

 

Hopefully you'll be able to find this amidst all the cross fire but If I may I'll tell you how I got started in P4. I built a test track of about 3' length with a single B6 turnout, converted a Bachmann 08 and a few old wagons I had lying around. Dead simple and yet very useful for learning how the finer standards of P4 worked. I joined an E-mail forum (that dates me) and got sage advice and council from the members and never looked back. This is a hobby after all. :good:

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

making a test track is a great idea (for reasons already given) but an added bonus is that you can use it later for trying out different ballast/rail-weathering ideas. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I built a test track of about 3' length with a single B6 turnout, converted a Bachmann 08 and a few old wagons I had lying around. Dead simple and yet very useful for learning how the finer standards of P4 worked.

making a test track is a great idea (for reasons already given) but an added bonus is that you can use it later for trying out different ballast/rail-weathering ideas. :)

I have a couple of Panniers, one of which I will mod to EM or P4, and then I can compare them side-by-side. But I'll probably have to modify the newer one because the older one masquerades as Duck when my daughters are playing Thomas and Friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kenton

 

what standard do you mean ? 

We all have a standard of modelling that we can define - mine is something beyond what I can currently achieve. I'd like to reach it but it is always elusively beyond my grasp. But not beyond my comprehension. I have always thought that if I can do something better than someone else then it might be of good standard but I'd like to do better. It is not something really tangible that can be laid down and probably would be meaningless to some one else. However, MRJ just about gets is right but not exclusively. I just know it when I see it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

....it is in no way harder to apply fine scale practices to fictitious layouts than to prototypical ones.  

 

Dave

I guess that depends on how you define "fine scale practices" - remembering it has nothing specific to do with track. Just consider modelling a station building. Working from a prototype everything is there to make an exact copy (the dimensions, the colour/size of the bricks, every detail) but if you make up a station it is always going to be more challenging to make it in the style of and to get the story to fit reality. I am NOT saying it cannot be done just that it is more difficult to do. Even if you copy a real station and place it on the fictitious layout it will still look out of place in its surroundings especiall when the building is uniquely recognisable.
Link to post
Share on other sites

erm Duck still works in P4

 

 

Ill break cover for once now its been suggested but its not the track or owt that that makes P4 do able...its the basebard quality, and many a modeller  who is far far better that I seems to lose it when it comes to wood working

 

The base has to be level, there isnt enough forgivenss in p4 track to make it any other way

Can someone define "level"?

 

Whilst the softboard (Sundeala?) and 2 x 1 softwood baseboards that I built in the 70's wouldn't be good enough - they weren't even any good for the OO layout I was trying to build at the time - I think that building a suitable set of boards shouldn't prove that difficult with the materials and tools available nowadays. For transportable layouts, the baseboard joints represent the biggest pitfall, but a little care will deal with that. After all, a 1mm vertical displacement is the same in any 4mm gauge and any horizontal displacement is a trap for unwary flanges, not matter how large or small.

 

My layout has several twenty plus year old baseboards built with chipboard tops and 2 x1 hardwood bearers, while the newer boards have birch ply girders and tops as is popular nowadays. The joints are aligned by pattern makers dowels and the boards held together when erected by 8mm coach bolts. Would you use anything less robust for any 2, 4 or 7mm layout?

 

Although I hadn't done any proper woodwork in years (assembling IKEA flatpacks doesn't count) I found it wasn't that difficult with a bit of planning and using the right tools to build the new baseboards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Responding to Kenton's last post

 

....and should a modeller take the time to understand just what it is that gives 'the correct feel' e.g. that certain knowledge (without seeing any running in boards or trains in company colours) of the region/area to which a particular railway setting belongs, then it is much less important as to whether it is an exact replica of a prototype...after all, how many of us can claim to recognise all prototypical locations from all angles?

 

Dave  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jol, I can make wood things nearly to cabinet  maker standards - a lot of railway modellers dont even know how to cut wood straight...or if the they do they over engineer things in the wrong way.... look how many but "ready made baseboards" :D

This one was P4, and was built entirely from chipboard. The pieces were all rectangles that could have been cut by the supplier (but weren't because I can cut straight!), and just needed screwing and gluing together on a flat surface. The backscene was an integral part of it. It ran well, even though I do like to make things more complicated by not sticking to one gauge!

 

post-7091-0-99606000-1383861694.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If people are desperate for a finescale railway modellers workshop forum there is one on the interwebthingy, I believe I am an admin for it. :scratchhead:

 

Is there a need for anymore sub forums on RMweb? Surely the thread title and any tags should help those who are looking for information  on a subject without there having to be a sub forum for that subject.

 

 

As I wrote the above I had a thought :O There is one sub forum Andy could consider for Diesel TMD modellers. Then we can happily say to each other "looking good mate" without those not interested butting in. :mosking:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The way this has developed topic has answered the question. There is no point in having a dedicated EM/P4 forum as it would simply degenerate into what we have seen above and in most other topics where P4 is mentioned. For many who want more realistic track than Peco  OO  then EM may well be a good compromise, but it too gets dragged down thorough being linked with P4.

 

Join the relevant Society, where you will not find such disputes,take from RMWEb what is worth learning about 4mm modelling in general and in the words of the Sex Pistols "Never mind the b*ll*cks".

The idea behind a EM/P4 sub group is plainly wrong, because they aren't the same thing at all - its almost the same as saying H0/OO, like all those Airfix packets/boxes!

 

The best choice is to have TWO sub forums - one for EM, the other for P4. Then those that don't like one of them, or indeed both (and as this thread [not that I've read it all], suggests there are plenty of those) can ignore it/them.

 

As Martin Wynne points out at the start, the search facility isn't that good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

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

Actually, the vast majority of this thread, the argument is about the problems of OO, with the wrong appearance of the track/wheel relationship. There is little actual discussion on the the original topic = should there be a separate sub Forum (or as I've suggested a sub forum for each of EM & P4).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...