P4 RTR, anybody?

[Anglian]

An interesting debate. My own thoughts:

 

Why not go the whole hog and go for new scale 3mm scale 14.2mm gauge. Smaller models to suit the modern home but with a true scale to gauge relationship and perhaps more chance of being able to fit a circuit into a spare room?

 

Not relating to the OP but I wish R-T-R 4mm could be designed in such a way as to make conversion of steam outline models to EM easier. Currently as a returner to the hobby I'm collecting OO locomotives and this is purely to get the beautiful body shells that I know I couldn't build or paint to the same standard, with the view of using them with EM chassis – currently Easi-chas as an example. I may yet fall at the first hurdle and go back to OO but it would still be with hand-built track and if I'm going to bother doing that then it might as well be EM. Every single modeller who's work in OO that I have admired has told me if they were starting again they would use EM and since I am starting again…

 

As has been said before in this debate I can't see any reason why EM wouldn't work as the 4mm R-T-R standard except for the market share of OO and that is never going to change. In many ways it is a huge shame for the hobby.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Anglian

[BG John]

But, for display purposes, 7mm scale is so much more impressive than either.............

I agree, but it takes up more space and money, so maybe not so appealing to horders collectors! Anyway, if I acquire a loco, I want to build a layout to run it on.

[LBRJ]

And how many RTR locos get bought and just put in the display cabinet? People who proudly claim collections of one, two or more hundreds of locos surely are no different to others with a stack of (probably fewer) kits.

 

Except that a display of RTR models on a well lit shelf or in a tasteful cabinet is probably more aesthetically pleasing to the passing viewer than a load of old cardboard boxes stacked up?

 

It is the difference between "front of house" in a museum - the part people visit; and the dusty realms of academia salted away in the warehouse to the rear.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Except that a display of RTR models on a well lit shelf or in a tasteful cabinet is probably more aesthetically pleasing to the passing viewer than a load of old cardboard boxes stacked up?

 

It is the difference between "front of house" in a museum - the part people visit; and the dusty realms of academia salted away in the warehouse to the rear.

 

True, however my point was that collectors who don't run their models are just as guilty of the same misdemeanor those that buy kits but don't build them. Yet amassing a collection of RTR stuff is more acceptable than a collection of kits.

 

Building an EM or P4 layout has always relied on people making  their models. Even if we want the OO RTR manufacturers to produce "convertible" locos and stock, I consider they would not see it as worthwhile, partly for commercial "insufficient demand" reasons and partly because they would have to rethink their design and manufacturing approach to accommodate what would be required. DIe casting for example doesn't provide sufficiently thin sections for clearance for P4  (or possibly EM) wheels - even some white metal kits have the same issues.

 

The vast majority of 4mm scale modellers are totally wedded to the concept of OO and increasingly reliant on someone to produce their models for them. Why would Bachmann, Hornby and the others bother to swim against the tide for little or no commercial benefit?

[Pacific231G]

There was a kind of RTR P4 train set in the past, US outline locos and stock in 4mm scale running on 19mm gauge track! It was known as "American OO". Never heard of it then? No surprise there!

But despite the close to accurate gauge, commercial 19mm OO generally known as "American OO" wasn't built to finescale standards any more than most H0 is. Lionel's version was very much in toy train territory but smaller manufuacturers did produce scale models.

 

It's probably mathematical luck that makes HO, a scale defined to half a milimetre to the foot and a gauge defined to a half millimetr e so accurate to gauge. just multiply 16.5mm by 87 and compare it with 1435mm- but tyre widths, flange depths, check and crossing clearances are all way larger than scale unless you go to proto 87 standards.

I've seen Peco plain track used in fiddle yards etc on P87 layouts and with the same gauge that makes perfect sense. That's about where the concurrence ends though except that I believe in America you can get P87 frogs and checkrails for I think Shinohara track as well as wheelsets to substitute for the normal H0 variety. On freight and passenger cars simply changing the wheels would still give axle boxes further out than they should be but just how noticeable is that?  

 

BTW Is the difference between P4/S4 and the fine scale EM used at Pendon in any way noticeable without using a micrometer?  

Edited October 6, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Torper]

P4 RTR?  Heaven forfend!!!  If that happened, how could we P4 modellers continue to be elitist?

 

DT

[UMinion]

 

BTW Is the difference between P4/S4 and the fine scale EM used at Pendon in any way noticeable without using a micrometer?

 

The way it was explained to me at a show is it's relative. The gap between a running rail and a check rail is less than the width of the rail head on the real thing and in S4. In EM and OO it's more. Once it was explained like that it was pretty obvious the difference and I sometimes find it harder to tell the difference between scratchbuilt 00 and EM track. I guess it's all about knowing what to look for?

[tomparryharry]

P4 RTR?  Heaven forfend!!!  If that happened, how could we P4 modellers continue to be elitist?

 

DT

Elitist? Heavens, I hope not. I do worry, however, that toy trains, regardless of scale, will continue to diminish in it's market to the point of irrelevance. The problem then arises as to whether manufacturers consider making the stuff in the first place... Latest Hornby offering, or My Little Pony? You can be as niche as you wish, then.... 

 

Happy weekend, everybody!  

 

Ian.

[Bernard Lamb]

 

 

BTW Is the difference between P4/S4 and the fine scale EM used at Pendon in any way noticeable without using a micrometer?  

The Pendon locomotive wheel according to my information has a flange width of 2-2.25mm so is in no way near to P4 standards.

So yes, the difference is very easily noticed with reasonable eyesight.

Bernard

[PeckettChap]

I think this is quite an interesting topic, not least because I intend my next layout to use a more accurate track gauge than OO.

 

One point which I do not think has yet been raised is that of education:-  when I first started becoming active in railway modelling, I only knew about OO gauge, but after countless magazines and some exhibitions over the years since, I have become both aware of EM and P4, as well as dissatisfied with the visual appearance of OO.

So, in order to entice future model makers to use a more accurate gauge, the visual benefits of EM and P4 need to be made even more clear than they perhaps already are.

Then potential modellers will also need to be educated as to the options by which layouts may be built to the finer gauges. Yes, much of this information is available in many forms already, but I would suggest it needs to be in more concise yet comprehensive forms.

 

Other posters have commented that P4 RTR will simply not happen, with EM not standing much more of a chance. But similar stances were once espoused about new-build full-size steam locomotives, and even electric cars for the masses. So I would suggest 'never' is probably putting it a bit too strongly. Education played a large part in such viewpoints changing.

 

It has also been commented that the current set of OO gauge RTR manufacturers are producing so much RTR that they could never be persuaded to take up EM or P4. But elsewhere, folk are worried that the most well-known OO gauge produced may yet disappear from the market place, or perhaps only survive with their range much reduced in size. IF that were to happen, would the market for kit production then revitalise ? If future model makers use kit-building to get a particular loco for their layouts, would the workload be the much the same regardless of gauge ?

 

Perhaps the best kick-start towards getting a P4 (or EM) RTR future is for some enterprising soul to start making RTR turnouts in P4 or EM (RTR EM/P4 flexi-track already being available of course), and possibly some 'set-track' pieces as well !

[tomparryharry]

I think this is quite an interesting topic, not least because I intend my next layout to use a more accurate track gauge than OO.

 

One point which I do not think has yet been raised is that of education:-  when I first started becoming active in railway modelling, I only knew about OO gauge, but after countless magazines and some exhibitions over the years since, I have become both aware of EM and P4, as well as dissatisfied with the visual appearance of OO.

So, in order to entice future model makers to use a more accurate gauge, the visual benefits of EM and P4 need to be made even more clear than they perhaps already are.

Then potential modellers will also need to be educated as to the options by which layouts may be built to the finer gauges. Yes, much of this information is available in many forms already, but I would suggest it needs to be in more concise yet comprehensive forms.

 

Other posters have commented that P4 RTR will simply not happen, with EM not standing much more of a chance. But similar stances were once espoused about new-build full-size steam locomotives, and even electric cars for the masses. So I would suggest 'never' is probably putting it a bit too strongly. Education played a large part in such viewpoints changing.

 

It has also been commented that the current set of OO gauge RTR manufacturers are producing so much RTR that they could never be persuaded to take up EM or P4. But elsewhere, folk are worried that the most well-known OO gauge produced may yet disappear from the market place, or perhaps only survive with their range much reduced in size. IF that were to happen, would the market for kit production then revitalise ? If future model makers use kit-building to get a particular loco for their layouts, would the workload be the much the same regardless of gauge ?

 

Perhaps the best kick-start towards getting a P4 (or EM) RTR future is for some enterprising soul to start making RTR turnouts in P4 or EM (RTR EM/P4 flexi-track already being available of course), and possibly some 'set-track' pieces as well !

Or, as you say, crowdfunding

 

Ian.

[Pacific231G]

The Pendon locomotive wheel according to my information has a flange width of 2-2.25mm so is in no way near to P4 standards.

So yes, the difference is very easily noticed with reasonable eyesight.

Bernard

Hi Bernard

According to the Scalefour Society the P4  tyre width (TW) is 1.85-2.00mm  and according to a couple of fairly old Pendon guides from 1990 they had by then got their tyre width down to 2mm though it's  wider on some older stock. The major difference between Pendon's EM wheel standard and P4 seems to be the flange depth of 0.6mm against P4's 0.38 though of course the gauge of 18mm (not 18.2mm) is different.

 

When it comes to the check clearances isn't it the flange width that determines how narrow they can be rather than the overall tyre width though the gauge has to be right to take advantage of that so is the Pendon gauge of 18mm significant in this? 

 

Comparing my own photos of Pendon with those of various P4 and EM layouts I can see that some of the tyres are a bit wide-it's particularly evident on some pony trucks- but the flangeways do appear to be narrower than the width of the railhead. That isn't necessarily (or generally?) the case  with EM, especially with older examples such as Leighton Buzzard (Peter Denny) or Metropolitan Junction (D.A. Williams) I believe that Pendon did consider going to P4 for the railways in the Vale scene but opted to stay with the same standards used on the Dartmoor scene. The deeper flanges allowed them to avoid compensation but it is clear that Guy Williams was using finer standards for EM than many others working in the gauge. Apart from some of the tyre widths, I find it very difficult to see any visual difference between Pendon's track and rolling stock and P4 but accept that the differences may be glaring to others.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Pacific231G

[LBRJ]

Why are we comparing Pendon to P4?

 

is there a reason or it just cos someone can?

[Pacific231G]

Why are we comparing Pendon to P4?

 

is there a reason or it just cos someone can?

Because Pendon is an example of EM and if that can look as good as P4 it may be more practical for more modellers. Minimum radii would be rather smaller and it may be more tolerant of less than perfect tracklaying That would be a factor in making an RTR offering viable.

My own interest is in getting around the narrow gauge appearance of over wide check rail and flangeway clearance without having to go to a proto scale and tolerances to do so. 

[LBRJ]

EM is a great alternative to OO - It looks the part and generally works ok.....I have done quite a bit of it.

But P4 is aimed at doing it as right as possible, its an end not a means

[Bernard Lamb]

Hi Bernard

According to the Scalefour Society the P4  tyre width (TW) is 1.85-2.00mm  and according to a couple of fairly old Pendon guides from 1990 they had by then got their tyre width down to 2mm though it's  wider on some older stock. The major difference between Pendon's EM wheel standard and P4 seems to be the flange depth of 0.6mm against P4's 0.38 though of course the gauge of 18mm (not 18.2mm) is different.

 

When it comes to the check clearances isn't it the flange width that determines how narrow they can be rather than the overall tyre width though the gauge has to be right to take advantage of that so is the Pendon gauge of 18mm significant in this? 

 

Comparing my own photos of Pendon with those of various P4 and EM layouts I can see that some of the tyres are a bit wide-it's particularly evident on some pony trucks- but the flangeways do appear to be narrower than the width of the railhead. That isn't necessarily (or generally?) the case  with EM, especially with older examples such as Leighton Buzzard (Peter Denny) or Metropolitan Junction (D.A. Williams) I believe that Pendon did consider going to P4 for the railways in the Vale scene but opted to stay with the same standards used on the Dartmoor scene. The deeper flanges allowed them to avoid compensation but it is clear that Guy Williams was using finer standards for EM than many others working in the gauge. Apart from some of the tyre widths, I find it very difficult to see any visual difference between Pendon's track and rolling stock and P4 but accept that the differences may be glaring to others.

David,

I think you are correct with your comments on the history of Pendon track development. They were committed to EM when P4 started but have worked out their own variations where it is possible to have a dimension closer to scale without adding too much extra work as would be required for  genuine P4. There are a few people who work to similar standards and they do seem to work for those that take the time and trouble to experiment. I have come across people who can see the difference in gauge but not the difference in clearances. Being used to measuring small parts in my day job I can probably pick up small differences by knowing what to look for. I could at one time pick up a variation of 5 thou using a combination of sight and feel but I doubt if I could do that now.  

Rather than go for P4 RTR there is a case for true scale gauge track with a reasonable tolerance using around a 2mm flange width and 0.6mm flange depth with track dimensions to suit.  But what would be the minimum viable radius for turnouts?  

However seeing that Peco with their bull head track have catered for 30 year old wheels and they should know the market better than any one, I do not see any chance of this happening. It is like the man asking for directions. If you want to get there then don't start from here.

Bernard

[DougN]

Back to the topic I have read through the above 4 pages and note the barriers to a mainstream model available from every model shop. The barrier is the number of people who model in P4 or are interested in dabbling.

 

The problems are what model will appeal to all those who would buy one. As the scalefour soc did a brief run of converted pannier tanks I think around 100 which were RTR and then converted. The next run was buy the loco RTR and go and have it explained to you how to convert it with conversion kits available at Scalefourum. Both were successful.

 

So out in the wild is about 200 essentially RTR locos from these 2 runs.

 

If a standard short run of 512 loco's I believe would be best as a 0-6-0 to make sure the entire run was sold out. The next question would be what prototype. Jinty, pannier tank, j class or a southern loco. This would be best for sales.

 

Only in short runs that are expected to sell out. So it is unlikely that we would see a main stream RTR even if the manufacturers were willing to do a small single run.

[BG John]

When it comes to the check clearances isn't it the flange width that determines how narrow they can be rather than the overall tyre width though the gauge has to be right to take advantage of that so is the Pendon gauge of 18mm significant in this?

18mm was the standard for EM when Pendon was started. The extra 0.2mm was added, I think, in the early 1970s. It was certainly the standard when I started my first EM layout in 1975. Members of my local club had built an 18mm layout some years earlier, and my stock was a tight fit on it.

[hayfield]

And how many RTR locos get bought and just put in the display cabinet? People who proudly claim collections of one, two or more hundreds of locos surely are no different to others with a stack of (probably fewer) kits.

Jol

 

Whilst totally agreeing with you about displaying items, people collect things for different reasons. Just look at the various shows which thrive on antiques/second hand goods

 

On the other hand I am very pleased having a collection of all the K's wagon and coach kits in their variants that were available to the retail market (Has anyone got a motor rail kit that don't want). These are in some cases very poor models, but something I like. Just started collecting the 009 kits (well I have 2 examples so far None of these are on display, perhaps they should be ?

Edited October 7, 2017 by hayfield

[Pacific231G]

18mm was the standard for EM when Pendon was started. The extra 0.2mm was added, I think, in the early 1970s. It was certainly the standard when I started my first EM layout in 1975. Members of my local club had built an 18mm layout some years earlier, and my stock was a tight fit on it.

Thanks John and Bernard

 

What I was wondering, and probably didn't express very clearly, was whether the extra 0.2mm was added to the track gauge for existing EM wheelsets which would loosen the tolerances but at the expense of increasing the check rail gaps and clearances. In his writings Peter Denny says that he widened his gauge to 18.25mm very early on simply because the Romford wheels he was then using seemed to need it.

Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick my understanding is that, while you have to decrease the gaps when using narrower tyres which would otherwise not be supported through a crossing , the converse isn't necessarily true if the flange thickness and back to backs are consistent and the gauge is adjusted appropriately. That could enable far better looking trackwork in gauges beyond EM/P4 (notably H0) . 

 

I'm a Friend of Pendon but have simply never asked the right questions. I know that their railway team considered going to P4 for the Vale scene but in the end opted to stay with the same standards as the Dartmoor scene.     

Edited October 7, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Jeff Smith]

Back to the topic I have read through the above 4 pages and note the barriers to a mainstream model available from every model shop. The barrier is the number of people who model in P4 or are interested in dabbling.

The problems are what model will appeal to all those who would buy one. As the scalefour soc did a brief run of converted pannier tanks I think around 100 which were RTR and then converted. The next run was buy the loco RTR and go and have it explained to you how to convert it with conversion kits available at Scalefourum. Both were successful.

So out in the wild is about 200 essentially RTR locos from these 2 runs.

If a standard short run of 512 loco's I believe would be best as a 0-6-0 to make sure the entire run was sold out. The next question would be what prototype. Jinty, pannier tank, j class or a southern loco. This would be best for sales.

Only in short runs that are expected to sell out. So it is unlikely that we would see a main stream RTR even if the manufacturers were willing to do a small single run.

I converted a Bachmann 57xx to P4 some years ago. At that time the model was around £75 and the drop in Ultrascale brass wheels about £30 if I remember correctly. A check of the Ultrascale web site shows them at £53 for brass and £73 for NS. The wheels are very nice and come ready gauged and quartered with a new gear, and use the existing coupling rods.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I converted a Bachmann 57xx to P4 some years ago. At that time the model was around £75 and the drop in Ultrascale brass wheels about £30 if I remember correctly. A check of the Ultrascale web site shows them at £53 for brass and £73 for NS. The wheels are very nice and come ready gauged and quartered with a new gear, and use the existing coupling rods.

A very interesting post. It gives some idea of the sort of costs that might be involved if one was to do this as a production run - not really all that much.

[Jeff Smith]

A very interesting post. It gives some idea of the sort of costs that might be involved if one was to do this as a production run - not really all that much.

Gibson wheels for the Pannier are currently £20 but come unmounted and require crankpins. Also I believe you have to re-use the Bachmann gear. This would put them at about half the price of Ultrascale brass ones but of course requires more work and a P4 back to back gauge.

[rob D2]

P4 RTR ?

[w124bob]

The whole conversation so far goes a long way towards the reason why I model US HO, near correct scale to gauge, near scale prototype couplings(Kadee 58's for me) and the potential to go Proto 87 without ditching 60+plus locos and much stock. Perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong end, however I doubt there is any mainstream company who is going put their cash into P4 rtr. Crowd funding with a niche supplier may just get you somewhere, I beleive the Sutton class24 has a P4 option.

Edited October 12, 2017 by w124bob