Experiment in EM-SF

[ianb3174]

I had a play with some bits and pieces tonight using EM-SF standards. Usual construction methods with ply sleepers, exactoscale chairs and such. I’ll try and get a wagon rolling tomorrow and see what it runs like. I’m loving the fine flangeways though I’ve always been a sucker for finescale whatever the gauge. 

[martin_wynne]

Hi Ian,

 

Looking good!

 

But I think you will struggle to find a prototype for this: 🙂

 

 

 

If you can't get timbers to interweave with a bit of juggling, shorten them to fit, like this:

 

 

If a 12" timber is very short, use an L1 bridge chair to keep the chair screws back from the end of the timber.

 

(L1 bridge chairs won't fit on 10" sleepers, so try not to shorten them too much, or use an M1 bridge chair instead.)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited September 22, 2022 by martin_wynne
typo

[ianb3174]

I did wonder how to resolve that. As that part is going to be covered with ash ballast I didn’t fret too much. But I’ll change it now I know. 

[ianb3174]

Corrected the sleeper anomaly and cracked on with laying the rest of the rails. It was quick as this turnout is made from recycled chairs and rail from an 00-SF effort of similar dimensions. I only had to adjust the closure rails and stock rail length. Had a little run through with my test wagon with its rusty Gibson wheels and rigid 23'6" wheelbase. All seems fine. 

[t-b-g]

It is lovely to see somebody else having a go with finer EM standards. I look forward to seeing how you get on.

[ianb3174]

35 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It is lovely to see somebody else having a go with finer EM standards. I look forward to seeing how you get on.

'tis but a mere test plank at this point. I have few wagons and an old loco to EM (not having measured them yet I suspect the wheels may be regauged 00) to try. I also have a smattering of P4 bits that I might build into an equivalent form, purely for visual comparison. I think there will be very little in it.

[martin_wynne]

8 minutes ago, ianb3174 said:

wheels may be regauged 00

 

Hi Ian,

 

Those probably won't work on EM-SF. It's intended for kit wheels only.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[ianb3174]

They're just drop in wheels on a diesel bogie and will be replaced by 'proper' ones before testing. 

[Penrhos1920]

Do 16.4 b2b EM wheels work?

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Penrhos1920 said:

Do 16.4 b2b EM wheels work?

 

No. That's fine for modern RTR wheels on regular EM.

 

But for EM-SF the minimum back-to-back is 16.5mm, and most RTR wheels won't work.

 

Martin.

[nswgr1855]

On 22/09/2022 at 07:48, ianb3174 said:

I had a play with some bits and pieces tonight using EM-SF standards. Usual construction methods with ply sleepers, exactoscale chairs and such. I’ll try and get a wagon rolling tomorrow and see what it runs like. I’m loving the fine flangeways though I’ve always been a sucker for finescale whatever the gauge. 

EM is already a 'fine scale' standard. Surely if you want to go finer you would choose P4  standards.

[martin_wynne]

14 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

EM is already a 'fine scale' standard. Surely if you want to go finer you would choose P4  standards.

 

P4 means starting again from scratch.

 

EM-SF can be mixed with standard EM on the same layout, and runs your existing EM stock with their existing wheels unmodified (except widened RTR wheels).

 

Your stock still runs on other EM layouts, and friends with EM stock can run it on your layout (except RTR wheels).

 

Martin.

[ianb3174]

The biggest factor was the amount of stock with EM wheels and to avoid the cost of rewheeling. I also had a surfeit of 0.8mm check chairs. 

[hayfield]

 

Ian

 

what an interesting idea I am looking forward to seeing your progress 

 

[nswgr1855]

18 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

P4 means starting again from scratch.

 

EM-SF can be mixed with standard EM on the same layout, and runs your existing EM stock with their existing wheels unmodified (except widened RTR wheels).

 

Your stock still runs on other EM layouts, and friends with EM stock can run it on your layout (except RTR wheels).

 

Martin.

Clearly this new 'standard has not been properly designed. EM wheels are designed for EM track, that is a 1mm flangeway, so most of todays mass produced wheels can be used if you obtain longer axles and regauge them, or buy 3rd party EM wheels. 1mm flangeways can handle 0.7mm wide flanges, wider than this means clearances become less than scale if you consider practical wheel  and track tolerances. Therfore using a 0.8mm flangeway means the widest practical wheel flange is 0.5mm to retain proven required clearances between the wheels and flange ways. Most of Existing stock will probably need to be re gauged to a precission of at least P4 wheel sets or have their wheels remachined to achieve reliable, smooth and derailment free results.

 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, nswgr1855 said:

Clearly this new 'standard has not been properly designed. EM wheels are designed for EM track, that is a 1mm flangeway, so most of todays mass produced wheels can be used if you obtain longer axles and regauge them, or buy 3rd party EM wheels. 1mm flangeways can handle 0.7mm wide flanges, wider than this means clearances become less than scale if you consider practical wheel  and track tolerances. Therfore using a 0.8mm flangeway means the widest practical wheel flange is 0.5mm to retain proven required clearances between the wheels and flange ways. Most of Existing stock will probably need to be re gauged to a precission of at least P4 wheel sets or have their wheels remachined to achieve reliable, smooth and derailment free results.

 

 

Hi,

 

You are being silly. Have you actually tried it?

 

Many 00 modellers are now using 00-SF very happily, running 0.8mm RTR flanges in 1.0mm flangeways.

 

EMGS-profile wheels, and 00/EM kit wheels to the NMRA RP25/88 profile or similar (Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, etc.), have flanges 0.6mm thick, and will run very nicely in 0.8mm flangeways.

 

Those who have tried EM-SF have reported good results. Do you not believe them?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Siberian Snooper]

00sf /4-sf, all over again, by the seem of it, but in EM. Round and round in ever decreasing circles, I wonder how long this debate will last.

 

 

[martin_wynne]

33 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

00sf /4-sf, all over again, by the seem of it, but in EM. Round and round in ever decreasing circles, I wonder how long this debate will last.

 

 

And also 0-MF in 0 gauge. 🙂

 

But both of those arguments have died down at last, because folks discovered that they actually work well and look good. And now supported by the trade, too:

 

 https://www.britishfinescale.com/category-s/1853.htm

 

Hopefully EM-SF will be accepted as an option for those who want to try it, without all the fuss.

 

What always mystified me was why folks objected to other folks being given a choice or doing their own thing? No-one was ever forced to adopt anything they didn't want.

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

The thread title says it all. It is an experiment to see if it works.

 

I have conducted an identical experiment and yes, it works.

 

Nobody has yet said to anybody that they are trying to change the world, or challenge established standards.

 

I just like tinkering around to see if EM can work with finer flangeways to suit my Manchester wheeled stock but still use my own stock with its existing wheels. This means I can have better looking 18mm track on my own layouts but still run my locos and stock on the 18.2mm gauge and 1mm flangeway EM layouts that my friends have.

 

As an aside, I ran one of the Manchester wheeled 6 wheeled carriages (fitted with a scratchbuilt Cleminson type arrangement) around some very tight curves and points on Buckingham earlier, pretty convinced that it would fall off all over the place as the radius, gauge, levels and check rail gaps are very inconsistent. To my huge surprise it ran perfectly!

 

 

[nswgr1855]

21 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

You are being silly. Have you actually tried it?

 

Many 00 modellers are now using 00-SF very happily, running 0.8mm RTR flanges in 1.0mm flangeways.

 

EMGS-profile wheels, and 00/EM kit wheels to the NMRA RP25/88 profile or similar (Alan Gibson, Ultrascale, etc.), have flanges 0.6mm thick, and will run very nicely in 0.8mm flangeways.

 

Those who have tried EM-SF have reported good results. Do you not believe them?

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Hello Martin,

 

I have built quite a few H0 scale Turnouts and crossings with 1mm flangeways using your excellent program Templot as a guide and track gauges made to the AMRA fine tolerance standard which is the Australian H0 equalevent. My experience of testing and caculations indicate if I use 0.8mm flanges, I need to set the back to back to an exact value, with no tolerance to maintain track clearances at track limits. Most track is not at the limits and peoples methods of measuring wheel flanges and track are not perfect. If the 0.8mm wheel flange profile is a good shape, then the flange shape will compensate for a frog interference error of up to about 0.1mm without any noticeable problem if the turnout radius is not to sharp. The same will go for 0.6mm flanges with 0.8mm flangeways. My point is 0.5mm wheel flanges are the widest flanges you should use for EM-SF 0.8mm track flangeways without going to extra tight tolerances in setting wheel Back to back dimensions . Otherwise you cannot  gaurantee smooth reliable derailment free trains. 

 

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

Hello Martin,

 

I have built quite a few H0 scale Turnouts and crossings with 1mm flangeways using your excellent program Templot as a guide and track gauges made to the AMRA fine tolerance standard which is the Australian H0 equalevent. My experience of testing and caculations indicate if I use 0.8mm flanges, I need to set the back to back to an exact value, with no tolerance to maintain track clearances at track limits. Most track is not at the limits and peoples methods of measuring wheel flanges and track are not perfect. If the 0.8mm wheel flange profile is a good shape, then the flange shape will compensate for a frog interference error of up to about 0.1mm without any noticeable problem if the turnout radius is not to sharp. The same will go for 0.6mm flanges with 0.8mm flangeways. My point is 0.5mm wheel flanges are the widest flanges you should use for EM-SF 0.8mm track flangeways without going to extra tight tolerances in setting wheel Back to back dimensions . Otherwise you cannot  gaurantee smooth reliable derailment free trains. 

 

 

Hi Terry,

 

Thanks for your kind words about Templot.

 

Are you a friend of Andy Reichert? It's strange that those carping about what we are doing in the UK always turn out to be H0 modellers from the other side of the planet.

 

Every time we experiment with something interesting, there seems to be an assumption from afar that we are trying to change the existing standards, or suggesting that everyone should follow the same course.

 

We are not. In the UK modellers do whatever they want to do. We don't have an NMRA telling them what they should do.

 

EM-SF is for EM modellers who know what they are doing and want to tinker with new ideas. They are quite capable of using good-quality kit wheels with 0.6mm flanges, and setting the back-to-back within the limits 16.5mm - 16.6mm needed to run them on EM-SF. They also know that on tight curves there will need to be some gauge-widening, as in prototype practice.

 

The payback for taking such care with their wheels is an improvement in the appearance of pointwork, with flangeways narrower than the rail width, as they are on the prototype. The narrower flangeways also allow for a fully scaled blunt nose on the vee without any loss of support on the wing rails, for very smooth running. Allowing for a front chamfer on the wheels and the corner radius on the rail-head takes the support close to the limit on standard EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[nswgr1855]

49 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Terry,

 

Thanks for your kind words about Templot.

 

Are you a friend of Andy Reichert? It's strange that those carping about what we are doing in the UK always turn out to be H0 modellers from the other side of the planet.

 

Every time we experiment with something interesting, there seems to be an assumption from afar that we are trying to change the existing standards, or suggesting that everyone should follow the same course.

 

We are not. In the UK modellers do whatever they want to do. We don't have an NMRA telling them what they should do.

 

EM-SF is for EM modellers who know what they are doing and want to tinker with new ideas. They are quite capable of using good-quality kit wheels with 0.6mm flanges, and setting the back-to-back within the limits 16.5mm - 16.6mm needed to run them on EM-SF. They also know that on tight curves there will need to be some gauge-widening, as in prototype practice.

 

The payback for taking such care with their wheels is an improvement in the appearance of pointwork, with flangeways narrower than the rail width, as they are on the prototype. The narrower flangeways also allow for a fully scaled blunt nose on the vee without any loss of support on the wing rails, for very smooth running. Allowing for a front chamfer on the wheels and the corner radius on the rail-head takes the support close to the limit on standard EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Hello Martin,

I found it strange that there is a interest in making EM with finer flangeways when there is a well established finer P4 standard. The difference in appearance between 1mm flangeways and 0.8mm flangeways is only noticeable when looking close or with the magnification that results from photography. Also EM allows most 00 wheels regauged to be used. I find no noticeable wheel drop using 1mm flangeways with any  00 or H0 wheels in the market. On the other hand P4 flangeways are easily observed from typical viewing distances. Of course it's harder to build to  P4 standards and get it to work. Each to his own. My H0 track is basically the same dimensions as 00-SF, just H0 scaled sleepers and spacing. I only know Andy from his posts in RMweb. 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

31 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

Hello Martin,

I found it strange that there is a interest in making EM with finer flangeways when there is a well established finer P4 standard.

 

Hi Terry,

 

P4 means starting again from scratch. EM-SF can be a gradual development for an existing EM modeller. Relay the goods yard and see how it goes. Build a small shunting plank and run your existing stock.

 

P4 has very shallow flanges, which requires above all a very high standard of flat baseboard construction. That's the thing which is often missed about P4 -- the need for excellent carpentry skills.

 

A large P4 layout is a lifetime project single-handed. EM-SF has an appearance very close to P4, but is more achievable in a typical time-frame. An EM-SF layout is not significantly more of a challenge than doing one in EM. It means ruling out using widened RTR wheels, but many EM modellers like to re-wheel 00 models anyway.

 

Each to his own.

 

You said it.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

59 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

Hello Martin,

I found it strange that there is a interest in making EM with finer flangeways when there is a well established finer P4 standard. The difference in appearance between 1mm flangeways and 0.8mm flangeways is only noticeable when looking close or with the magnification that results from photography. Also EM allows most 00 wheels regauged to be used. I find no noticeable wheel drop using 1mm flangeways with any  00 or H0 wheels in the market. On the other hand P4 flangeways are easily observed from typical viewing distances. Of course it's harder to build to  P4 standards and get it to work. Each to his own. My H0 track is basically the same dimensions as 00-SF, just H0 scaled sleepers and spacing. I only know Andy from his posts in RMweb. 

 

 

 

 

You seem to have gone off the beaten track (just noticed the pun!) with your own standards. I would have thought that with your skills, proto87 would have been your choice but you have chosen your non mainstream midway house between H0 and proto87.

 

We are just doing the same with ours.

 

When you make as slow a progress as I do in EM, the thought of changing 40 years worth of modelling to P4 has no appeal. It would take the rest of my lifetime to convert about half my stuff.

 

Building a "better" EM layout that I can run my existing stock on does appeal, very much.

 

I can also run the same stock on some very nice EM layouts that some of my friends have.

 

So hopefully not such a strange thing to try.

[nswgr1855]

On 11/10/2022 at 00:52, t-b-g said:

 

You seem to have gone off the beaten track (just noticed the pun!) with your own standards. I would have thought that with your skills, proto87 would have been your choice but you have chosen your non mainstream midway house between H0 and proto87.

 

We are just doing the same with ours.

 

When you make as slow a progress as I do in EM, the thought of changing 40 years worth of modelling to P4 has no appeal. It would take the rest of my lifetime to convert about half my stuff.

 

Building a "better" EM layout that I can run my existing stock on does appeal, very much.

 

I can also run the same stock on some very nice EM layouts that some of my friends have.

 

So hopefully not such a strange thing to try.

When developing the AMRA fine tolerance standards I did consider flangeways finer than 1mm for H0 and EM. You can make 0.8mm flangeways and be within the limits of the AMRA standard on simple turnouts, however as agreed by all, it tightens building tolerances, and restricts wheels that are suitable. Also it should be noted standard DOGA 00 track uses 1.25mm flangeways as does NMRA MOROP and AMRA medium tolerance standards.