New to EM gauge. Queries on repainting locos

[philsandy]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for your input.  Thats useful, I have been thinking about possibly using Marcway points in the fiddle yard, for quickness more than anything.  If (and its still a big if!) I decide to handbuild track, i'd rather put the time and effort into where I can see it, ie on the scenic boards!  Definitely, something to think about - would you be able to post a photograph on here of one of the marcway points on your layout?  Im not concerned whether its weathered or ballasted, but it would be interesting to see them, but obviously dont worry if you are unable to.

 

Nice to hear from somebody who is already modelling EM and has been through the wheelset conversion process. I may run the odd steam special if I ever acquire a steam locomotive(!) but 99.9% would be diesels, which from what everyone is saying, are far easier to deal with.

 

 

 

 

Richie

 

Richie,

 

Have attached a couple of photos of Marcway pointwork as requested, taken with a phone camera, so not brilliant.

It has all been painted and ballasted, I picked out the small blobs of solder with a rust coloured paint to represent the chairs.

The third photo is a point I built using C&L chairs and plywood sleepers. It was my first attempt and was quite pleased with it, and yes it does work, very smoothly too.

As Hayfield has pointed out building your own pointwork in any gauge is just the same in respect of time taken/ difficulty.

 

If you go P4 AFAIK you have to change all wheels and use P4 wheels as they have finer flanges, where as in EM and I think 00-SF most modern RTR wheels are suitable.

I even use the exsisting Bachmann wheels on EM conversions on steam locos, after reducing the wheel  flange thickness by 0.2 - 0.3 mm, all you need is a vernier and a good flat file.

On the couple of diesel locos I have converted I didn't even have to do that, just pulled the wheels apart on the axles to the correct B2B, dead easy.

[martin_wynne]

where as in EM and I think 00-SF most modern RTR wheels are suitable.

I even use the exsisting Bachmann wheels on EM conversions on steam locos, after reducing the wheel  flange thickness by 0.2 - 0.3 mm

 

You shouldn't need to do that for RP25/110 wheels (modern RTR wheels) in EM, provided you set them to the required back-to-back, which for such wheels is 16.4mm in EM (not 16.5mm back-to-back as for Markits and EMGS wheels).

 

Martin.

[philsandy]

You shouldn't need to do that for RP25/110 wheels (modern RTR wheels) in EM, provided you set them to the required back-to-back, which for such wheels is 16.4mm in EM (not 16.5mm back-to-back as for Markits and EMGS wheels).

 

Martin.

 

Thanks Martin, but do Bachmann always use RP25/110 wheels? their wheels do seem to be inconsistent.

Measuring the flange thickness with a vernier (not easy to get an true meaurement, I know) they are always slightly thicker than the Alan Gibson EM wheels I have.

According to The EMGS manual Alan Gibson wheels flange thickness were measured at 0.53mm,  RP25/110 are 0.030" which is 0.75mm.

[96701]

Gradients need to be measured from true horizontal, a very accurate spirit level is needed and reverse it every measurement to even out the effor. Plenty of "1 in 50" gradients are 1 in 30 because the baseline was 1 in 100 and not level, and lets face it 1 in 100 is level if you are a jobbing carpenter or a bit of a DiY bodger. 

When we set a layout in a loft above the rafters, we used a long plastic tube with a lot of water in it to check whether or not the rafters were level down the length of the loft. They weren't so this was taken into account by installing packing pieces under the long timbers. What we didn't check was whether the rafters were level across the loft with the result that if any rolling stock was placed on the board at right angles to the track, it started rolling off.

[Richie Kynaston]

Richie,

 

Have attached a couple of photos of Marcway pointwork as requested, taken with a phone camera, so not brilliant.

It has all been painted and ballasted, I picked out the small blobs of solder with a rust coloured paint to represent the chairs.

The third photo is a point I built using C&L chairs and plywood sleepers. It was my first attempt and was quite pleased with it, and yes it does work, very smoothly too.

As Hayfield has pointed out building your own pointwork in any gauge is just the same in respect of time taken/ difficulty.

 

If you go P4 AFAIK you have to change all wheels and use P4 wheels as they have finer flanges, where as in EM and I think 00-SF most modern RTR wheels are suitable.

I even use the exsisting Bachmann wheels on EM conversions on steam locos, after reducing the wheel  flange thickness by 0.2 - 0.3 mm, all you need is a vernier and a good flat file.

On the couple of diesel locos I have converted I didn't even have to do that, just pulled the wheels apart on the axles to the correct B2B, dead easy.

 

Hi Phil,

I must admit, the Marcway points do look better than I imagined they would to start with, when i started thinking about the lack of detail with soldering - thank you for posting those.  I *think* I am swaying towards EM gauge, it seems to give a lot of the benefits, but without some of the more difficult work.  Im concious that while i've had a model railway before and had an attempt (poorly!) at point building, in terms of technical and physical ability im very new to things, and im starting to think that the work required to go to P4 might be a bit too much for a first time.  EM seems to solve quite a few of my queries however.

 

How have you wired the electrics on your hand-built point?  Im assuming your DCC, but I guess it could be easier if its DC?  I note that your still using fishplates on the trackwork - my friends with their O gauge trackwork just used plastic stick on detailing fishplates on the side, but I guess that could be because O gauge track was bigger any slight movement was less likely to cause an issue?

 

Richie

[martin_wynne]

Thanks Martin, but do Bachmann always use RP25/110 wheels? their wheels do seem to be inconsistent.

Measuring the flange thickness with a vernier (not easy to get an true meaurement, I know) they are always slightly thicker than the Alan Gibson EM wheels I have.

According to The EMGS manual Alan Gibson wheels flange thickness were measured at 0.53mm,  RP25/110 are 0.030" which is 0.75mm.

 

Hi,

 

Bachmann wheels are intended to conform to the NMRA H0 standard with RP25/110 wheels. They all come out of the same Far East factory. However, quality control can be variable. Provided the flange is not thicker than 0.8mm and you set them to 16.4mm back-to-back, they should work fine.

 

EM and 4-SF (00-SF) use the same wheels and track standards, there is simply a 2.0mm difference between them.

 

For more information about wheel settings, see this page, and for EM add on 2.0mm to all the dimensions:  http://4-sf.uk/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[philsandy]

Hi Phil,

I must admit, the Marcway points do look better than I imagined they would to start with, when i started thinking about the lack of detail with soldering - thank you for posting those.  I *think* I am swaying towards EM gauge, it seems to give a lot of the benefits, but without some of the more difficult work.  Im concious that while i've had a model railway before and had an attempt (poorly!) at point building, in terms of technical and physical ability im very new to things, and im starting to think that the work required to go to P4 might be a bit too much for a first time.  EM seems to solve quite a few of my queries however.

 

How have you wired the electrics on your hand-built point?  Im assuming your DCC, but I guess it could be easier if its DC?  I note that your still using fishplates on the trackwork - my friends with their O gauge trackwork just used plastic stick on detailing fishplates on the side, but I guess that could be because O gauge track was bigger any slight movement was less likely to cause an issue?

 

Richie

 

Richie,

 

I built the point as an excercise really, just to see if I could do it, so It has not been wired up.

I did all the wiring for the Marcway points, yes DCC.

Electrics is not my best subject, but AFAIK wiring points is the same wether it's DC or DCC. What is easier in DCC is the rest of the layout, as you do not need to have isolating sections. 

 

Yes I did use rail joiners, but in hindsight there was no need, and I would not do again, apart from detailing fishplates.

[Richie Kynaston]

Richie,

 

I built the point as an excercise really, just to see if I could do it, so It has not been wired up.

I did all the wiring for the Marcway points, yes DCC.

Electrics is not my best subject, but AFAIK wiring points is the same wether it's DC or DCC. What is easier in DCC is the rest of the layout, as you do not need to have isolating sections. 

 

Yes I did use rail joiners, but in hindsight there was no need, and I would not do again, apart from detailing fishplates.

 

Thanks Phil,

Thats useful to know, my thought was to wire each piece of rail anyway, so that looks like a good move, and go with detailing fishplates.

 

Rich

[brightspark]

A couple of points about wheels.

First P4 wheels do not just have a finer flange, they also have a thinner wheel and tyre.

EM specifies a finer wheel than the old OO standard that is now becoming the norm for OO.

As said above though, not all OO wheels can be pulled out to EM. Sometimes the flange is too deep or the wheel can be too thick. I tend to buy new wheels sets as a matter of course.

 

Rail. Don't get fixated by Code 100 code 75. If scale track becomes your thing, then rail thickness changes with the load of the track. Think light railways and tramways. Code 100 goes back to the dark days when getting hold of rail was very limited. All that is now gone so you can consider flat bottom rail, bullhead or even plate flangeway.

 

Yes the ScaleFour Society is the current society for P4 (protofour...its a long dark story). The EMGS support both track standards, that is 18.2mm and 18.83.

 

You asked me about AJ couplings.

Why I went down that route?

As a group who were exhibiting we found that 3 links were too fiddly for senior members and even the younger members took ages to couple up a loco to its train. And trying to couple up under corridors was just impossible. One of the group convinced us to try AJ's and we found that they worked and are almost invisible. Plus they are dirt cheap to make. They also become easier to make as you gain expirence.

 

How do we get on with them?

If they are set up correctly, they are a joy. However some find them hard to use. At the layouts last outing I realised that the reason that the operator was having trouble uncoupling was due the magnet being operated when the wagon was in the wrong position. (the magnet is by the axle not under the buffers)

 

And I agree EM is (now/has become) a halfway house to P4. OOfinescale is being sold as a halfway house to EM.

 

Andy

 

ps EM used to be called OO finescale. But I only put that in to make sure the issue gets confusing.

[Richie Kynaston]

Andy,

Thanks for that - can I just confirm that by AJ you mean the Alex Jackson couplings? I've found a web presence showing the history and how they are built, but haven't yet come across a retailer - can you point me in the right direction please? They do look far more unobtrusive than Kadee's. Do they have the same delayed action that Kadee do?

 

While having a wander around the web this evening, I've come across the Penbits website, which provides replacement etched brass bogies, complete with springing, for many diesel types - ok there are a couple of types of rolling stock that I'm looking at that are not currently covered (i.e. Class 08s, 20s, 31, 56, 58, 60) but even if the replacement bogies became my preferred option, those types could just go with replacement wheel sets.

 

How do you find the rewheeling of wagons and carriage bogies - presumably just a straightforward a simple swap out of wheel sets? I've read a little more of the P4 booklet from the ScaleFour society and I must say its quite interesting!

 

Richie

[martin_wynne]

As said above though, not all OO wheels can be pulled out to EM

 

Hi Andy,

 

If you are going to make that assertion, I think you should specify which ones. Obviously old Triang wheels from the 1970s won't work in EM, but the vast majority of current production 00 RTR wheels are suitable for EM. A great many modellers have now demonstrated that current RTR models run fine on 4-SF (00-SF). And the only difference between that and EM is that EM is 2mm wider.

 

Yes, the flanges may be thicker than specified in the EMGS standard, but the way to deal with that is to adjust the back-to-back accordingly.

 

More information on setting wheels here -- for EM simply add 2.0mm to the relevant dimensions: http://4-sf.uk

 

For 00 RTR wheels in EM set the back-to-back to 16.4mm max.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited June 21, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Torper]

Richie,

 

I model in P4.  Like almost all 4mm modellers I started off in 00, but became dissatisfied with the appearance of the track and changed to EM.  At that time P4 was still in its infancy.  Subsequently, when a move of house meant a complete change of layout, I decided that if I've got to go to the bother in EM of building my own track and re-wheeling all my stock I might as well go the whole hog and get it right, and so I went for P4.  It hasn't always been plain sailing  - there have been quite a lot of times when I wished I'd never bothered with it! - but all things considered I wouldn't want to go back to any of the other 4mm gauges.

 

As others have said, in P4 you have to build all your own pointwork.  It isn't all tnat difficult.  You can print out templates for the pointwork of your choice using Templot, and then build the points using the various jigs and gauges supplied by the Scalefour Society.  The procedure is exactly the same if you were building EM or indeed OO-SF pointwork.  The components for building your own track can be expensive. For plain track, you can buy P4 flexitrack.  You will also have to re-wheel all your RTR stock and locos - Alan Gibson supplies P4 wheels for almost every eventuality at the same price as he charges for 00 or EM wheels.  Diesels are easy to convert; all you basically do is take out the old wheels, remove the gear wheel, put it onto the replacement P4 axle, and then "drop in" the new wheelsets.  A locomotive converted in that way will run perfectly well on well laid P4 track, although it will run even better if you use one of Penbit bogie kits you've referred to.  Steam locos are not so easy - in fact, in many cases they can be rather awkward and sometimes it's prefererable to build a new chassis (kits often available) than convert the RTR one.

 

Someone referred to suspension in P4 and indeed there is a myth that all P4 stock and locos have to be sprung or compensated.  That's not so.  I and many other P4 modellers have got RTR wagons and coaches that run quite OK with nothing more than replacement P4 wheels being installed in place of the 00 ones.  Having said that, springing is necessary in some long wheelbase vehicles, and will often improve running on others.  It's also highly desirable on steam locos.

 

I would be wrong in suggesting, however, that P4 is easy.  It's a bit more difficult than EM, a lot more difficult than 00.  If you're working by yourself, don't expect to build a big layout in P4 - most of the large P4 layouts have been built by groups of modellers (although to some extent that applies to most scales).  If you want a main line layout running express steam locos, I'd avoid P4 at this stage and I wouldn't encourage a complete novice to start in P4.  But you have some modelling experiance and if you want to give it a go, I'd suggest you start very small, just a "plank" of a layout with a couple of points, a loco, a few items of stock, and see how you get on.  Get in touch with the local Scalefour Society group you've mentioned and go along to one of their meetings - by and large we're a pretty helpful bunch.  Then you could consider joing the Scalefour Society, which is worth it even if only for the four excellent magazines it produces each year and for the full use of its very helpful internet forum (https://www.scalefour.org/forum/ if you haven' found it already).

 

DT

Edited June 22, 2017 by Torper

[Crewlisle]

Richie,

 

Before going into whether you want 00, EM or P4, decide what you want on your layout.  Don't let the computer design decide for you!  Forget the modern planning tools; I did it the old fashioned way using Peco point templates (even if you are using any other track, they will be quite close in geometry for design purposes) & aligning the curves by eye.  I placed the templates where I wanted them then carefully aligned the curves & adjusted the templates as required.  Using a couple of lengths of flexible track, see if you can get a smooth curve between your points.  As they say in the ship repair/building industry, ‘If a curve looks right it is right!’

 

If you want a prototypical layout, by all means ask on this forum what experienced modellers think & then adjust your plan accordingly but do not slavishly do what 'Anyrail' or 'Templot' say is correct.

 

When I started 'Crewlisle' 40 years ago I decided what I wanted from my train spotting days in the fifties & sixties.  That was a terminus for six coach expresses, steam shed, diesel shed, turntable, goods yard, WCML with OLE, semaphores on high level, colour light signals on the WCML & a reversing loop.  I am the first to admit that it is not prototypical or super detailed but it entertains, hence appearing at the NEC five times.   I think I have achieved my ambition & I could never break it up & build a different one.

 

Peter

[BR60103]

Drop-in wheelsets:  I think that most modern wagons and coaches can be converted to EM or P4 by popping out the original wheels and popping in new ones. However, you may find that the brakeshoes no longer line up with the wheel treads. Minor surgery?   Some wagons may have the bits of the suspension too close together to fit scale distance wheels.

DCC compatible points.  What happens here is that a small short circuit that would be a stutter in DC causes the very sensitive circuit breaker in the DCC controls to shut down. The places this usually happens are between the open point and the stock rail of all-rail/electrofrog points. Solution is electrical separation of point rails and frog and bond point rails to stock rail. Going to narrower flange wheels helps, but then you are inspired to narrow the gap between the rails. The other location is in plastic frogs where the diverging metal rails are separated by a narrow fillet of plastic and metal wheels touch both rails at once. This will not be a problem if you build your own.   (You are a relatively young feller, aren't you?)

[hayfield]

Andy,

Thanks for that - can I just confirm that by AJ you mean the Alex Jackson couplings? I've found a web presence showing the history and how they are built, but haven't yet come across a retailer - can you point me in the right direction please? They do look far more unobtrusive than Kadee's. Do they have the same delayed action that Kadee do?

 

While having a wander around the web this evening, I've come across the Penbits website, which provides replacement etched brass bogies, complete with springing, for many diesel types - ok there are a couple of types of rolling stock that I'm looking at that are not currently covered (i.e. Class 08s, 20s, 31, 56, 58, 60) but even if the replacement bogies became my preferred option, those types could just go with replacement wheel sets.

 

How do you find the rewheeling of wagons and carriage bogies - presumably just a straightforward a simple swap out of wheel sets? I've read a little more of the P4 booklet from the ScaleFour society and I must say its quite interesting!

 

Richie

 

 

Richie

 

If you wish to go down the P4 route then do so, BUT whilst building the track is much the same (in fact slightly easier in both P4, EM & 00SF) which ever gauge is chosen, the standards and build quality required of base boards, track laying and chassis building/conversion for all stock is far higher in P4 than other gauge options owing to the finer flanges being less forgiving, plus you will have to change all wheels

 

Just take into consideration the practical skills required, cost and time required (you could also say amount of stock required, age of existing stock, whether steam or diesel outline and RTR or kit built) when choosing between 00(SF), EM and P4 gauges. The easiest route will be 00sf, the most challenging will be P4

[Richie Kynaston]

Richie,

 

I model in P4.  .... It hasn't always been plain sailing  - there have been quite a lot of times when I wished I'd never bothered with it! - but all things considered I wouldn't want to go back to any of the other 4mm gauges.

 

As others have said, in P4 you have to build all your own pointwork.  It isn't all tnat difficult.  You can print out templates for the pointwork of your choice using Templot, and then build the points using the various jigs and gauges supplied by the Scalefour Society.  The procedure is exactly the same if you were building EM or indeed OO-SF pointwork.  The components for building your own track can be expensive. For plain track, you can buy P4 flexitrack.  You will also have to re-wheel all your RTR stock and locos - Alan Gibson supplies P4 wheels for almost every eventuality at the same price as he charges for 00 or EM wheels.  Diesels are easy to convert; all you basically do is take out the old wheels, remove the gear wheel, put it onto the replacement P4 axle, and then "drop in" the new wheelsets.  A locomotive converted in that way will run perfectly well on well laid P4 track, although it will run even better if you use one of Penbit bogie kits you've referred to.  Steam locos are not so easy - in fact, in many cases they can be rather awkward and sometimes it's prefererable to build a new chassis (kits often available) than convert the RTR one.

 

I would be wrong in suggesting, however, that P4 is easy.  It's a bit more difficult than EM, a lot more difficult than 00.  If you're working by yourself, don't expect to build a big layout in P4 - most of the large P4 layouts have been built by groups of modellers (although to some extent that applies to most scales). 

 

DT

Hi DT,

A very comprehensive summary - many thanks. I must admit that was the conclusion I was coming to reading the P4 guide. I'm conscious of the time and effort P4 needs over above that for OO-Sf or EM. But some interesting points raised that do make me think about a few things

 

Richie,

 

Before going into whether you want 00, EM or P4, decide what you want on your layout.  Don't let the computer design decide for you!  Forget the modern planning tools; I did it the old fashioned way using Peco point templates (even if you are using any other track, they will be quite close in geometry for design purposes) & aligning the curves by eye.  I placed the templates where I wanted them then carefully aligned the curves & adjusted the templates as required.  Using a couple of lengths of flexible track, see if you can get a smooth curve between your points.  As they say in the ship repair/building industry, ‘If a curve looks right it is right!’

 

Peter

Hi Peter,

An obvious but very valid point, thanks for shouting out on that one. I think there are so many things that modellers (including me in that statement) seem to think about when planning a layout that sometimes that basic and obvious ones which make it fun at the end of the day get missed, or pushed to the back. I have made a list of the basic things I want to include in the layout, some are operational features, others scenic, so I'm trying to decide on the best way forward keeping those in mind.

 

I quite enjoy photography as a hobby, so one of the things I'd like to do is to get some realistic photos - something close to the 'how realistic are your models' thread on here. So I'm bearing that in mind with all this - however it has to be said there are some amazing pure N and OO gauge models and layouts shown on there, which does show what you can do!

 

  

Drop-in wheelsets:  I think that most modern wagons and coaches can be converted to EM or P4 by popping out the original wheels and popping in new ones. However, you may find that the brakeshoes no longer line up with the wheel treads. Minor surgery?   Some wagons may have the bits of the suspension too close together to fit scale distance wheels.

DCC compatible points. Solution is electrical separation of point rails and frog and bond point rails to stock rail. Going to narrower flange wheels helps, but then you are inspired to narrow the gap between the rails. The other location is in plastic frogs where the diverging metal rails are separated by a narrow fillet of plastic and metal wheels touch both rails at once. This will not be a problem if you build your own.   (You are a relatively young feller, aren't you?)

Well I guess that depends on your definition of relatively young!! As I'm 38, I'm going to go with a yes ... and add you to my Christmas card list for that!!! Haha. I'm slowly coming round to the line of thought of point building, I didn't have the jigs for blades or vees when I attempted the O gauge ones, so I'm hoping that would make life a bit easier. Having been reading up on DCC stay-alive options, and acknowledging that you can get some very powerful stay live fittings now (also that the layout is circular and no end roads giving a big drop!) I am also thinking that one options that could make the wiring easier would be to isolate the points totally and leave the, unpowered, being DCC sound equipped, the locos would be fitted with a stay-alive anyway, so some decent size capacitor that has 10-12 seconds of power as a minimum should allow such things to be dealt with easily. Avoids the problem of electrical connections, and also some of the the complexity of wiring. The only issue might be the shunting yard, where there could be a long run of points (ie 5-6) but those could be wired as normal.

 

Richie

If you wish to go down the P4 route then do so, BUT whilst building the track is much the same (in fact slightly easier in both P4, EM & 00SF) which ever gauge is chosen, the standards and build quality required of base boards, track laying and chassis building/conversion for all stock is far higher in P4 than other gauge options owing to the finer flanges being less forgiving, plus you will have to change all wheels

 

Just take into consideration the practical skills required, cost and time required (you could also say amount of stock required, age of existing stock, whether steam or diesel outline and RTR or kit built) when choosing between 00(SF), EM and P4 gauges. The easiest route will be 00sf, the most challenging will be P4

Hi John,

Thanks for that - I must say that was the conclusion I was coming to given your earlier comments, and also reading the PF PDF guide - I think my thought process is now between 00sf and EM, of which I'm swaying towards the EM option, I think. The one thing this thread has convinced me of is that I don't want to go down the Peco track option, and if pre-built flexitrack can be obtained in EM for the fiddle yard, that would add some speed. I guess looking at what others have done, the option to build fiddle yard points and track soldered to copper clad is a quicker build. I'd rather put time and effort into making good looking (hopefully) hand built track for the scenic areas where it's going to be seen. THe fiddle yard just needs to be functional and reliable.

 

I perhaps need to read up a bit more on OOsf, although I think EM could end up winning the day. Are there any EM society members reading this - what is the society like, do they have local groups? A couple of their forthcoming events have been pointed out to me, and the printed manual that you can when you join sounds like it has a wealth of info in it?

 

I know Torper above referred to the Penkit chassis (which are available for both EM and P4) earlier, but has anyone had any actual experience of them - is the improvement worthwhile? It does occur to me that a loco that was not quite powerful enough for the layout could have now bogie chassis fitted, and the opportunity taken not only to make it double power bogies, but also to change the motor in it for something with a big more oomph? I presume some people regardless of scale, do repower models with new motors?

 

Can I also say thank you to everyone who has contributed so far - I've only realised this morning that this has been read over 1,000 times in three days! I didn't think it would get that much interest, so I hope those others reading it have gained something from it as well.

 

Richie

[brightspark]

Hi Andy,

 

If you are going to make that assertion, I think you should specify which ones. Obviously old Triang wheels from the 1970s won't work in EM, but the vast majority of current production 00 RTR wheels are suitable for EM. A great many modellers have now demonstrated that current RTR models run fine on 4-SF (00-SF). And the only difference between that and EM is that EM is 2mm wider.

 

Yes, the flanges may be thicker than specified in the EMGS standard, but the way to deal with that is to adjust the back-to-back accordingly.

 

More information on setting wheels here -- for EM simply add 2.0mm to the relevant dimensions: http://4-sf.uk

 

For 00 RTR wheels in EM set the back-to-back to 16.4mm max.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin,

I have no list, and if I was to produce one it would become quickly out of date as things change. I can only relate to my experience and those in my circle. All I can say is that when converting stock I take each project as it comes along. Most often I end up changing the wheels for new.

Perhaps it is because most of the stuff I convert is either old or at the "Railroad" end of the market. 

By the way a back to back setting of 16.4 sounds wrong for EM. I use a Back to Back of 16.5mm -0.00 +.002". (do you like the mix of imperial and metric there?)

 

Anyway back to Richie,

I will hold my hand up to declare that I am a member of the EMGS.  http://www.emgs.org/ I am most likely to end up joining the other lot as well very soon. (As soon as Steve Carter can get me to unlock my wallet on the rare days that it has cash in it)

The manual is very comprehensive and is now online. Having been a member since God was a lad, I have the whole thing in paper held in a great big file. There are area groups but these don't cover the whole country. (There are also AGs for S4).

 

Regarding AJ's.

Yes these are Alex Jacksons and no you can't buy them, which for me is part of their charm. They are made from .011" Guitar wire available from music shops. The staff at my local music shop are always amused that this is the only string that I ever buy.

Jigs and gauges are available from both societies and from other sources as well. The S4 society publish a book about the coupling and the man, and the MMRS have a web page dedicated to their former member. http://mmrs.co.uk/technical-articles/alex-jackson-coupling/

 

Andy

[brightspark]

Thinking about my comment above in response to Martin. Yes for me thicker flanges are a reason to reject a wheelset as I won't be able to achieve the critical 16.5mm Back to back.

The reason why this dimension is critical is the crossing check rails are set at 16.5mm and if we loosen the check rail dimension the finer wheels start to play up on point work.

 

Richie, this is an example of the high level of standards that you would need to maintain if you want to have good running. The societies supply the track and back to back gauges to make life easier. Discipline is essential though if you require good running. But don't let this put you off.

 

Andy

[martin_wynne]

Thinking about my comment above in response to Martin. Yes for me thicker flanges are a reason to reject a wheelset as I won't be able to achieve the critical 16.5mm Back to back.

The reason why this dimension is critical is the crossing check rails are set at 16.5mm and if we loosen the check rail dimension the finer wheels start to play up on point work.

 

Hi Andy,

 

Please read this page for a better understanding of how track and wheels work: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

The critical dimension is from the back of one wheel to the front of the flange on the other wheel -- not the back-to-back dimension between them.

 

This critical back-to-flange dimension for EM must not exceed the check gauge, which for EM is 17.2mm. In order for that be achieved with RTR flanges 0.8mm thick, the wheels must not be more than 16.4mm apart. Whether that "sounds" right doesn't matter -- what's important is whether it works. It does.

 

For some advice on setting different types of wheel, see this page and scroll down: http://4-sf.uk

 

For EM add on 2.0mm to the dimensions given.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Edited June 23, 2017 by martin_wynne

[Richie Kynaston]

Hi Martin,

Anyway back to Richie,

I will hold my hand up to declare that I am a member of the EMGS.  http://www.emgs.org/ I am most likely to end up joining the other lot as well very soon. (As soon as Steve Carter can get me to unlock my wallet on the rare days that it has cash in it)

 

Regarding AJ's.

Yes these are Alex Jacksons and no you can't buy them, which for me is part of their charm. They are made from .011" Guitar wire available from music shops. The staff at my local music shop are always amused that this is the only string that I ever buy.

Jigs and gauges are available from both societies and from other sources as well. 

Andy

 

 

Andy,

Many thanks. I'm still toying between OOsf and EM. I have discounted P4 in my mind as I think the learning curve and high chance of the fine tolerances going wrong and causing, not a loss of interest, but the mental ability to think I can achieve it first time is too high.

I keep thinking if your going to the trouble of OOsf, then you may as well go EM! So, joining the EMGS might be my next move, especially if the jigs for track and the like are available from them. Is there a Society for OOsf?

 

I need to investigate these Aj couplings a bit more. Do they have a delayed action, as that could be a deal breaker for shunting if not.

 

 

Richie, this is an example of the high level of standards that you would need to maintain if you want to have good running. The societies supply the track and back to back gauges to make life easier. Discipline is essential though if you require good running. But don't let this put you off.

 

Andy

A good point and one worth repeating! Does anyone know of a website or step-by-step photo guide to sorting the EM wheel sets out on a model? I'd like to see how it's done.

 

Richie

[Richie Kynaston]

Hi Andy,

 

Please read this page for a better understanding of how track and wheels work: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

The critical dimension is from the back of one wheel to the front of the flange on the other wheel -- not the back-to-back dimension between them.

 

This critical back-to-flange dimension for EM must not exceed the check gauge, which for EM is 17.2mm. In order for that be achieved with RTR flanges 0.8mm thick, the wheels must not be more than 16.4mm apart. Whether that "sounds" right doesn't matter -- what's important is whether it works. It does.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Hi Martin,

Thanks for contributing to the thread. I have used your Templot software. Can you give any guidance on spacing out double/quad track? I like the clearance feature, I found a guide on that through the web somewhere! I've also read ( I Think) that Templot can handle transition curves? Could you point me in the right direction of a guide or help document on how to do them, also for slips if there is one?

 

Cheers

Richie

[martin_wynne]

 I've also read ( I Think) that Templot can handle transition curves? Could you point me in the right direction of a guide or help document on how to do them, also for slips if there is one?

 

Hi Richie,

 

For some notes on how transition curves are defined in Templot, see: http://templot.com/martweb/gs_geometry.htm#transition

 

For a guide to using transition curves to link between templates, see: http://templot.com/companion/link_existing.html

 

For creating slips, there is a video at help > watch a video > single slip menu item in Templot, or here: https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=RxdwQczwCvgPpdDu1OJJhA2

 

For more help with Templot, please see the Templot Club user forum at: http://85a.co.uk/forum/

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Richie

 

A lot of modellers using EM gauge and to a lesser amount P4 use preformed/flexi track on both scenic and non-scenic boards, speed is one issue and cost the other. I plan to use a mixture on the scenic boards of Exactoscale fast track bases and hand built plain track, the hand built plain track will be used in an area where there are several turnouts and (hopefully) the trackwork will be the focal point

 

On non scenic boards in the past various methods have been used, missing out 2 of every 3 sleepers on both plain track and turnouts, this is more relevant now owing to the cost of both copperclad and track. Others use cassettes made from ply strip and aluminium strip, doing away with the traditional fiddle yards, others use traversers. Lots of ways to organise things to save space and of costs

 

As for joining EM gauge groups  this area on the EM gauge soc web page may help http://www.emgs.org/events/area-group-meetings/

 

But much better to join a local club, even if they have not got an active EM gauge section, or travel a little to one that has. What area of the country do you live in ?

 

I am a member of the EM gauge soc. Just joined and as said they now do a CD with all the hand book details in it plus you get access to the members area

 

As for chassis kits, speak with Chris at Highlevel models  http://173.254.28.51/~highlev3/chris/Pages/bogiepage.html. I am about to commence on a 4 wheeled rail bus and going to use their Pacer unit, I now use their gear boxes for steam locos as I prefer them over other makes. For diesel era there are LoRider's and LongRider's. Also other makes that are recomended

[Richie Kynaston]

Hi Martin

Thanks for the points to those documents, that's really helpful.

 

Hayfield:

That's an interesting thought missing out a couple of sleepers in the fiddle yard. Worth further consideration. I'm near Lincoln, but not sure of any local clubs round here, need to investigate that one further. Those replacement bogies that you've pointed out look decent, although from a search round the suggested motors all seem to be difficult to get hold of, presume there are others. You say other makes are recommended as well, could you point me in the right direction for those?

 

Cheers

Richie

[hayfield]

I am certain there are decent clubs within your area, post a request for clubs and of fellow EM gauge modellers in your area