Using the easy-assembly Finetrax pointwork kits in 00 and EM (and in P4 from the S4 Society)

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Derekstuart said:

 

With all respect, if you were born several decades earlier you might well have made the same comment about electric motors in model trains. "No one, lad, is ever going to give up their clockwork trains for those new fangled motor things. There can't be more than a dozen using motors now- a waste of time."

(the same comparison can be used for any new technology)

I don’t agree with the analogy.  For change to occur there has to be both the opportunity and the motivation.  Whilst Wayne’s track work provides the opportunity there is very little motivation as far as the vast majority of railway modellers are concerned.  Most are already completely happy with OO to the point that many don’t actually realise that the track is narrow to scale.  
Some technology advances in the hobby are forwards compatible with little effort such as the example you made where clock work powered models could co-exist with the new fangled electric motored models.  indeed I predict that remote control battery powered locos will increasingly be found coexisting on traditional Analogue and DCC powered layouts.  
The hurdle to overcome with conversion to EM requires either starting afresh or a major investment in converting legacy stock to the wider gauge.  
As someone who has over many years  promoted EM  modelling as both an exhibitor and demonstrator, I have discussed the topic of conversion many times both with the visiting public and with Reps  of the major model railway manufacturers, and I know that the desire to convert to EM is only held by a small minority of modellers and only a few of them will actually make the switch.  Wayne’s track work will increase the ratio within this minority but will not influence the majority who are already happy with or oblivious to the short comings of OO. 
Frank

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

 

With all respect, if you were born several decades earlier you might well have made the same comment about electric motors in model trains. "No one, lad, is ever going to give up their clockwork trains for those new fangled motor things. There can't be more than a dozen using motors now- a waste of time."

(the same comparison can be used for any new technology)

 

Derek

 

Thankfully many others including the trade think different, with trackwork EM modellers have never been better off, with Wayne's turnouts, the EMGE own products and C&L's new 2 and 3 bolt flexitrack the future has never been brighter. 

[hayfield]

55 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

As someone who has over many years  promoted EM  modelling as both an exhibitor and demonstrator, I have discussed the topic of conversion many times both with the visiting public and with Reps  of the major model railway manufacturers, and I know that the desire to convert to EM is only held by a small minority of modellers and only a few of them will actually make the switch.  Wayne’s track work will increase the ratio within this minority but will not influence the majority who are already happy with or oblivious to the short comings of OO. 
Frank

 

Frank

 

I don't think many if anyone thinks EM gauge will be anything but a minority interest, but these are the groups where the smaller traders excel, whether its track, eras, locos or companies

 

Remember a very small increase in total modellers being tempted to migrate or just try EM gauge modelling will mean a large/very large increase of modellers in this group

 

We have seen a massive rise in the numbers of specialist RTR loco manufacturers supply niche locos, as said it just needs one to offer an EM gauge loco to start interest, with modern cad software this may not be far off, as the development costs have been more or less paid out on an existing 00 gauge model

[KeithHC]

I had an email conversation with Accuscale when they announced the Deltic. They said they would not be including an EM option. But they where insuring that conversion would be easy and the bogies had been designed to that effect. In a way EM now comes into the “field of dreams” concept. If you build it they will come. Wayne’s product is a catalyst that can now be added too with the EMGS/Peco turnouts and track and the new C&L flex track. I do not have a layout yet but the plans are there for layout no 1 to EM from the start. There is nothing wrong with 00 but I want something a bit closer to scale. As far as the mainstream manufacturers are concerned what about a limited edition issue in EM only available to preorder so that reaction could be gained. Come on Hornby Bachmann et al an 08 or a Pannier.

 

Keith

[Jeff Smith]

Most simple inside motion 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 locos can easily be converted to EM or P4 with drop-in wheelsets.  The same goes for many D/E locos.  As long as the splashers are wide enough, ie, to scale, wider wheels can be fitted.

 

Rather than offer a version with wider wheels manufacturers could easily ensure during the design stage that provision is built-in.  Imagine them being advertised as 'EM/P4 Ready', just like 'DCC Ready'.....

Edited March 14, 2022 by Jeff Smith
Added info

[NFWEM57]

I have an Accurascale Class 37 on order for which an EM wheelset will be available separately and a Cavalex Class 56 which will also have EM wheelsets available separately.  I also have an Accurascale Manor on order for which there will not be an EM gauge wheel set available, I asked a while back,  but am prepared to give conversion a go.   I recently acquired a new Bachmann Class 47, conversion possible with a little bogie modification (it's a bit narrow in there!!) and using the RTR wheels with new axles; central final drive gear.

 

For steam, i am going to take a different approach and use, as far as is possible, the RTR wheelsets provide they are 'thin' enough.

 

Patrick

[Andy Vincent]

17 hours ago, Wayne Kinney said:

 

Thanks, Jack!

 

I'll look into the 3 way after previously said kits. I've already made one in N Gauge

I would also put in a belated vote for a three way - I am converting a fairly well known P4 layout to EM and will need to decide whether to use a 3-way (as originally designed) or a pair of simple turnouts. Knowing that 3-ways might be here this year would certainly help the decision process!

 

Keep up the good work - and enjoy the holiday

[roythebus1]

And I've recently converted a well-known club layout from EM to 00sf! Wayne's track wasn't available when the conversion started, so all the pointwork is hand-built using Templot. It isn't always as easy as people think converting to a slightly different gauge as the double track distances vary. But I digress.

[wilks]

On 13/03/2022 at 14:33, Wayne Kinney said:

Hi Guys,

 

OK, I promised some eye candy to get this topic back on track. Below are some pictures of the EM Gauge 1in7 Diamond and 1in7 Double Slip kits:

 

 

These should both be released this week, with 00 Gauge and 00-SF versions to follow the following week.

 

Price of the Diamond kit is the same as a standard turnout at £22.99, the Double Slip kit is £39.

 

I'm also wanting to get an A5 standard turnout kit released in all 3 gauges by the end of the month. I go on holiday beginning of April so want all this done before I leave

 

What formations would you like to see next? I believe an A5 & B7 crossover would be sensible, but I'm looking for input! Maybe a single slip?

 

Following the A5 turnout I think a single slip of the same geometry  as the double slip would be a very useful addition.  Continue the great work.

[Dunsignalling]

On 04/03/2022 at 09:36, bradfordbuffer said:

Track spacers with queen's head on....cool

 

Didn't some on in a railway modeler article use some 2p coins as balance weights for under baseboard signal mechanism but got into trouble for drilling coin! Mid eighties I think or was it just a urban tall story? 

 

I had a mate who regularly "converted" 1p and 2p coins into washers because it was cheaper than buying washers.... 

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

On 14/03/2022 at 09:15, Chuffer Davies said:

I don’t agree with the analogy.  For change to occur there has to be both the opportunity and the motivation.  Whilst Wayne’s track work provides the opportunity there is very little motivation as far as the vast majority of railway modellers are concerned.  Most are already completely happy with OO to the point that many don’t actually realise that the track is narrow to scale.  
Some technology advances in the hobby are forwards compatible with little effort such as the example you made where clock work powered models could co-exist with the new fangled electric motored models.  indeed I predict that remote control battery powered locos will increasingly be found coexisting on traditional Analogue and DCC powered layouts.  
The hurdle to overcome with conversion to EM requires either starting afresh or a major investment in converting legacy stock to the wider gauge.  
As someone who has over many years  promoted EM  modelling as both an exhibitor and demonstrator, I have discussed the topic of conversion many times both with the visiting public and with Reps  of the major model railway manufacturers, and I know that the desire to convert to EM is only held by a small minority of modellers and only a few of them will actually make the switch.  Wayne’s track work will increase the ratio within this minority but will not influence the majority who are already happy with or oblivious to the short comings of OO. 
Frank

Not to mention those who tolerate OO because they just don't have enough space available to build the sort of layout they want in either of the more correct gauges.

 

In a magazine interview (many) years ago, Alan Gibson described the relative sales of his wheels as 95% OO, 4% EM and 1% P4. That rather put any discussion of "gauge wars" into proportion. It also, of course, excluded all those OO users (a probable majority) who didn't swap their wheels at all!

 

Since then, the RTR trade has changed to providing metal wagon/coach wheels as standard, so I'd venture that even more probably stick with what came in the box nowadays..... 

 

John

Edited March 16, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[Izzy]

11 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

It isn't always as easy as people think converting to a slightly different gauge as the double track distances vary.

Surely they should be the same, the track centre distances, whatever the gauge? The scale doesn’t alter, nor the size of the rolling stock, so the structure standards and all else should be identical. What am I missing?
 

Bob

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

 What am I missing?
 

 

Bodgery?

 

Mike.

[Harlequin]

On 14/03/2022 at 13:13, Jeff Smith said:

Most simple inside motion 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 locos can easily be converted to EM or P4 with drop-in wheelsets.  The same goes for many D/E locos.  As long as the splashers are wide enough, ie, to scale, wider wheels can be fitted.

 

Rather than offer a version with wider wheels manufacturers could easily ensure during the design stage that provision is built-in.  Imagine them being advertised as 'EM/P4 Ready', just like 'DCC Ready'.....

 

That would be a great target for manufacturers to aim for.

 

But note that when Accurascale were asked about this for the upcoming Manor they said they couldn't do it for that model in a practicable way, or words to that effect. Those guys go the extra mile where they can so that implies that RTR "EM-ready" steam is really not easy!

 

There are lots of things to take into account for a steam loco:

• The thickness of the splasher material, usually moulded plastic or cast alloy, will be much thicker than the prototype. So there's less room than the prototype. (Solution: Splashers made of sheet metal?)
• The positioning of brake shoes and other parts outside the wheels. (Solution: Removable outer parts with spacers supplied to convert from OO to EM?)
• The alignment of cylinders and outside motion with con rods and wheels. (Erm...)
• For any rigid chassis with three or more axles, the amount of sideplay allowed in the axles for the minimum radius the loco is expected to traverse. (This at least would be a lot smaller for EM than the silly toy-train radii that OO locos are expected to handle!)

Anything else?

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Harlequin

[Baldyoldgit]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Surely they should be the same, the track centre distances, whatever the gauge? The scale doesn’t alter, nor the size of the rolling stock, so the structure standards and all else should be identical. What am I missing?
 

Bob

As you tighten the radius , the track centres have to move out.

Tony.

[St Enodoc]

35 minutes ago, Baldyoldgit said:

As you tighten the radius , the track centres have to move out.

Tony.

The gauge doesn't have anything to do with that.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Surely they should be the same, the track centre distances, whatever the gauge? The scale doesn’t alter, nor the size of the rolling stock, so the structure standards and all else should be identical. What am I missing?
 

Bob

Nothing, as far as track centres are concerned - but wider gauge means longer points.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Nothing, as far as track centres are concerned - but wider gauge means longer points.

 

As you say the track centres and more importantly the loading gauge remains the same irrespective of gauge. the length of turnouts does increase slightly as the gauge widens, approximately a P4 B6 is 23mm longer than an 00 gauge B6. Providing the track centres are the same there should be few issues

 

Where there can be an issue is where RTR turnouts are used and unless you splice them together usually the RTR track centres are larger. 

[Jeff Smith]

4 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

That would be a great target for manufacturers to aim for.

 

But note that when Accurascale were asked about this for the upcoming Manor they said they couldn't do it for that model in a practicable way, or words to that effect. Those guys go the extra mile where they can so that implies that RTR "EM-ready" steam is really not easy!

 

There are lots of things to take into account for a steam loco:

• The thickness of the splasher material, usually moulded plastic or cast alloy, will be much thicker than the prototype. So there's less room than the prototype. (Solution: Splashers made of sheet metal?)
• The positioning of brake shoes and other parts outside the wheels. (Solution: Removable outer parts with spacers supplied to convert from OO to EM?)
• The alignment of cylinders and outside motion with con rods and wheels. (Erm...)
• For any rigid chassis with three or more axles, the amount of sideplay allowed in the axles for the minimum radius the loco is expected to traverse. (This at least would be a lot smaller for EM than the silly toy-train radii that OO locos are expected to handle!)

Anything else?

 

Phil, I think you nailed it.  The two RTR P4 conversions I have done were relatively straightforward.  Drop in wheels for a Lima GWR railcar - no mods required.  For a Bachmann GWR Pannier, Ultrascale ready-quartered wheels complete with new drive gear.  I could have used the original coupling rods but fitted scale ones.  Also had to remove the brake pull rods and fitted new ones from brass strip.

 

Some K's white metal kits have needed splasher thinning.  Brass kits have been ok.

[dasatcopthorne]

And I thought that this thread was about Wayne's point kits.

 

You live and learn.

 

Dave.

[Jeff Smith]

6 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Not to mention those who tolerate OO because they just don't have enough space available to build the sort of layout they want in either of the more correct gauges.

 

In a magazine interview (many) years ago, Alan Gibson described the relative sales of his wheels as 95% OO, 4% EM and 1% P4. That rather put any discussion of "gauge wars" into proportion. It also, of course, excluded all those OO users (a probable majority) who didn't swap their wheels at all!

 

Since then, the RTR trade has changed to providing metal wagon/coach wheels as standard, so I'd venture that even more probably stick with what came in the box nowadays..... 

 

John

Gibson OO wheels are currently supplied with both OO and EM axles so the ratio of use cannot be estimated.  The above info was probably at a time when you had to specify the axle length when ordering.

[Harlequin]

13 minutes ago, dasatcopthorne said:

And I thought that this thread was about Wayne's point kits.

 

You live and learn.

 

Dave.

 

Just a small eddy in the current.

 

[Chuffer Davies]

51 minutes ago, dasatcopthorne said:

And I thought that this thread was about Wayne's point kits.

 

You live and learn.

 

Dave.

Gives us something to do whilst we await the next golden nugget from Wayne.  He likes to tease you know…

Frank

[fulton]

Having bought some of Wayne's point kits from the EMGS a few months ago I have only just revisited this thread, disappointed by the very negative posts a few pages back and the drift off to discussions on different 4mm track gauges/standards. (with all the passion that has) Back to subject the kits went together well and without problems, have now laid, next job wiring up. At the same time I bought the EMGS ready to lay points as they are a bit shorter and my space is tight in places, when painted and ballasted I think they will both look very good and perform well. Photo of my Janes' Creek layout, the timber viaduct links the main SECR North Kent Line with the low level Invicta Engineering Works.

Edited March 16, 2022 by fulton
correction

[whart57]

8 hours ago, Harlequin said:

There are lots of things to take into account for a steam loco:

• The thickness of the splasher material, usually moulded plastic or cast alloy, will be much thicker than the prototype. So there's less room than the prototype. (Solution: Splashers made of sheet metal?)
• The positioning of brake shoes and other parts outside the wheels. (Solution: Removable outer parts with spacers supplied to convert from OO to EM?)
• The alignment of cylinders and outside motion with con rods and wheels. (Erm...)
• For any rigid chassis with three or more axles, the amount of sideplay allowed in the axles for the minimum radius the loco is expected to traverse. (This at least would be a lot smaller for EM than the silly toy-train radii that OO locos are expected to handle!)

 

Basically all the things why we got OO in the first place!