RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted October 5, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 5, 2011 Evening track folk I'm mulling over my permanent home project and reading around to try and decide whether to go for OO or EM track standards. I prefer the appearance of EM and either way will aim to build track myself. Can't say 'llI enjoy the effort (time and cost) involved in converting many locos to EM though! A deciding factor though could be the minimum practical radii for curves in terms of actually fitting the plan in the room. 2'6" seems to work fine space-wise but would RTR locos converted to EM cope with this? Those likely to be converted include Hornby T9, West Country, M7 and Bachmann Std 3s, 4s and N Class. Any thoughts or actual experiences would be appreciated as I've seen various radii of between 2' and 3'6" mentioned as minimum standards. Regards Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katier Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 I just fired up Templot, set it to EM and checked to see what the 'warning' radius was. Pretty sure that radius is the minimum defined in the standards for that gauge and the minimum in Templot is 750mm (or 29.6 inches) - so your 2ft6 should work according to Templot. (For comparison it sets OO's minimum to 600 and 1000 for P4) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penlan Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 You can go down to 2' 6" rad in EM, but I personally think 0-4-4, 4-4-0's etc., look wrong especially something like an M7 which has a long wheelbase. 2' 6" is OK for Pugs etc., I wouldn't like to try and get a 0-8-0 round that radius. Then there's the matter of buffers and couplings to be considered too - how close (or far apart) will the stock need to be on a straight track to get round a 2' 6" curve? and if your using loose (3 link, AJ's etc.,) couplings and intend to push round that curve - buffer locking. And don't try that on a reverse 'S' curve.... know what I mean!!!! I prefer a minimum of 3' 6", but have come down to 3' where there is normally no pushing (entry/leaving fiddle yard etc.,). A friend is down to 2' 8", but he use's Midland Rly 0-6-0T's and pulls his stock round that curve, we did use some gauge widening, but it's still tight and on the straight, to me the stock seems to have some distance between their buffers. Most of my loco's don't like his sharp curve. That's my 2 penny worth anyway. EDIT - Thinking about the title - Typical .... then I think 3' minimum, better 3' 6" 'typical' with perhaps a special case to go below that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert17649 Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 a straight unsuspended conversion of a rigid chassis rtr would not cope with 2'6 at least none of mine could . but compensation or suspension could make it work 3'6" is better 4' is comfortable.I use 36"radius in my yard and stations are 48"everywhere else is 3' and all locos somehow get through if driven carefully.as the sharper radius is in the station the speed is lower so things mostly work. In EM IMHO, compensation or suspension is essential and pays dividends +++ despite the extra work. robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefrk Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Hi, I have to agree with Penlan. I've been doing EM since 1985, with small and big locos, auto couplings and three link. My present project has minimum 6ft 1825mm at the ends of the scenic section and 1000mm 3'4'' in and out of the fiddle yard. Tests were done on the big locos (Brits) to check the running as I tend to build them tight and with side control bogies.... I think for reliable running stick to above 1000mm. As an aside I recently finished a Brassmaster Royal Scot in P4, what a devil of a job I had to get it round 4ft radius (the customers minimum) but then it did have all the bells and whistles with nothing left off.... Dave Franks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 You certainly can make 2' 6" work from a technical point of view, but to some extent, you lose the appearance benefits of the wider gauge and - as Penlan notes - you run the risk of larger locos (and 'modern' bogie carriages) looking ridiculous. Not applicable in your situation, but things the length of Peaks, Merchant Navies or class 66s really do not look at all good and the full-size machines wouldn't manage anything like double that in working order. Aesthetics aside, our club layout does have one exit road from the fiddle yard which goes down to sub-3' and this does limit the stock than can use the inner-most road to the extent that we've had to ease the curve a little. Length of coupled wheelbase seems to have a greater impact in this case than compensated v. rigid in this instance. Adam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 a straight unsuspended conversion of a rigid chassis rtr would not cope with 2'6 at least none of mine could... Whilst agreeing that springing or compensation are essentially a Good Thing, I don't really understand what you are getting at here. Surely, given good quality level track, adequate side play and appropriate gauge widening, a rigid chassis should be able to cope? It almost sounds like you are suggesting that a sprung/compensated chassis will allow one or more wheels to ride up on their flanges and so avoid derailing. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xm607 Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Hi, I have built all my loco kits to go around 2' 6" curves, which include W.D. 2-8-0, W.D. 2-10-0, 9F, LNER Garrett, Q6, K3,K1, and others, so that they will traverse a guest layout as I don't have one at the moment. Steve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted October 8, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 8, 2011 The minimum radius on Peter Denny's Leighton Buzzard is approx 2'6" and may be slightly less in places. It has been succesfully run and shunted with an 0-4-4T and a 4-4-0 tender loco. The tank is built on two bogies like a carriage and the tender loco has the leading bogie wheels on a pony truck arrangement and the rear bogie wheels run in the main frames, (so it is really a 2-2-4-0 or some such!). Not only do such dodges get rid of buffer locking, they also make the locos look much better around the curves. We had a guest loco on at EXPO EM North, which was a WD 2-10-0. This, despite my severe doubts, went around the curves without any problem. I am guessing that it may be the same WD mentioned in the post above? So, although not ideal, 2' 6" in EM is acheivable and practical, without any doubt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert17649 Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Whilst agreeing that springing or compensation are essentially a Good Thing, I don't really understand what you are getting at here. Surely, given good quality level track, adequate side play and appropriate gauge widening, a rigid chassis should be able to cope? It almost sounds like you are suggesting that a sprung/compensated chassis will allow one or more wheels to ride up on their flanges and so avoid derailing. Nick I am only quoting from my own rather limited experience,as by rigid chassis I mean just that , and those I have built go round 3' but not 2'6" will give gauge widening a shot but as I use ready made track how do I do that.please? The minimum radius on Peter Denny's Leighton Buzzard is approx 2'6" and may be slightly less in places. It has been succesfully run and shunted with an 0-4-4T and a 4-4-0 tender loco. The tank is built on two bogies like a carriage and the tender loco has the leading bogie wheels on a pony truck arrangement and the rear bogie wheels run in the main frames, (so it is really a 2-2-4-0 or some such!). Not only do such dodges get rid of buffer locking, they also make the locos look much better around the curves. We had a guest loco on at EXPO EM North, which was a WD 2-10-0. This, despite my severe doubts, went around the curves without any problem. I am guessing that it may be the same WD mentioned in the post above? So, although not ideal, 2' 6" in EM is acheivable and practical, without any doubt. thanks for that I obviously need a bit more practice with EM robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Hi Robert I think you will find its the sideplay in the compensated locos that made the difference, the actual compensation will have no effect on minimum radius. I think its important not to loose sight of the only advantage EM has, that being you can get away with rigid locos with their wheels re-gauged. If you are going down the compensation route then why put in all the work of p4 for a track gauge that is still wrong? Provided locos have sufficient side play they will go round first radius curves be they 00, em or P4. Its the couplings that will cause you the real problems. In answer to the original question, 3 ft actual minimum but 6 ft visual minimum (ie anything less looks really daft) HTH Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Id have thought that was quite a useful advantage to be honest Not for someone kit building their chassis compensated/sprung though which was Jim's point. directed to Robert. Wagons and coaches though are a different thing and people save money keeping the wheels they have. As well as couplings its things like sticking steps on steam locos causing more issues than coupled wheel sideplay. I'd suggest to the OP sticking some rail on a board to 2' 6 and trying a regauge of one of the more complex locos, if you can run it satisfactorily on this then go for it. Transition curves are the crucial bit on the scenic sections to minimise how long you see carriages at odd angles. We've not managed 6' on the club layout in P4 though sadly due to space constraints, anything over 4' looks alright though I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted October 9, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted October 9, 2011 Gosh thanks chaps, what a great number of replies. Last time I checked the post hadn't been replied to! Starting to look like the smallish exhibitable BLT I've been toying with will be EM but the permanent home layout will be OO. There will be 2 180deg curves on the home layout and whilst one could be eased to 3'6", the other is set by space needed for access. Factoring in my mechanical / modell engineering skills, I suspect that 2'6" whilst acheivable by some may not be doable by my bodgery! Cost has to come into the equation too and converting 60 RTR steam locos and 100s of rolling stock items won't be that cheap! Thanks for the help folks, looks like you've put one big question to bed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Id have thought that was quite a useful advantage to be honest If it wasn't useful it wouldn't be an advantage would it? Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Hi Robert I think you will find its the sideplay in the compensated locos that made the difference, the actual compensation will have no effect on minimum radius. I think its important not to loose sight of the only advantage EM has, that being you can get away with rigid locos with their wheels re-gauged. If you are going down the compensation route then why put in all the work of p4 for a track gauge that is still wrong? Jim Jim Whilst I agree with you on most of the points you have raised replacing wheels (which on a large layout must be taken into consideration) being a major factor, EM standards (flange size etc) makes good reliable performance easier to achieve. I am not saying you cannot do this in P4 but due to the finer standards its harder to achieve. EM is the easier option and its only 0.62mm out in track gauge as against 2.35mm visually will be a vast improvement. For some of us its an achievable step forward in our skill set, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert17649 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 My I add my thanks, next time I'll avoid lengthening axle holes and so on and just go for sideplay,is there a set formula or is it purely empirical which suits my crude but usually effective crummy engineering? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Hi John Absolutely, the reusing of the rtr wheels is a big draw. The difference of 0.63mm is not easy to spot. the flangeways being wider than the rail head is very noticable and thats where thee big difference is. I freely admit I have more trouble telling the difference between EM and handbuilt 00 than EM and P4 because of this reason. Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Hi John Absolutely, the reusing of the rtr wheels is a big draw. The difference of 0.63mm is not easy to spot. the flangeways being wider than the rail head is very noticable and thats where thee big difference is. I freely admit I have more trouble telling the difference between EM and handbuilt 00 than EM and P4 because of this reason. Cheers Jim Jim Your spot on, as I think you know I am dabling in P4, I have built a crossover (the hard way with rivets) and it works well with a wagon. The next job is to motorise a Prairie chassis so I can have something running. I want to lay the track on high density foam to get quiet running, my concern will be to get the track flat and level as the fine flanges and flangeways are not as forgiving as EM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Gosh thanks chaps, what a great number of replies. Last time I checked the post hadn't been replied to! Starting to look like the smallish exhibitable BLT I've been toying with will be EM but the permanent home layout will be OO. There will be 2 180deg curves on the home layout and whilst one could be eased to 3'6", the other is set by space needed for access. Factoring in my mechanical / modell engineering skills, I suspect that 2'6" whilst acheivable by some may not be doable by my bodgery! Cost has to come into the equation too and converting 60 RTR steam locos and 100s of rolling stock items won't be that cheap! Thanks for the help folks, looks like you've put one big question to bed. Very sensible idea doing it that way, firstly you can keep and use older items you may not want to convert and have something to use. Building a small layout is a good way to go when changing scales/gauges (thats what I am doing). No great financial loss if you want to change back, you can take your time building track etc as you have something running. And can also be a test bed for new ideas and methods or just improving skills. Also for exhibiting a layout small and simple has so many advantages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted October 9, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 9, 2011 I see that a simple enquiry about minimum radius in EM has been turned into the usual EM vs P4 debate! I go back to the example of Leighton Buzzard. All the locos have rigid coupled wheels and the only reason they stay on the track is because they have big flanges! The track gauge varies quite a lot, as do the wheel standards (Romford/Hamblings mostly but a few Triang and Hornby Dublo too!). EM has the tolerances in the standards that mean that such a combination can and does work around 2' 6" radius curves. P4 simply is not that forgiving! The comments about sideplay are the telling ones. If you get enough of that in the right places, then all should be well. Converting existing 00 locos to EM means that you have the opportunity to leave the frames where they are and add washers to the front and back axles, leaving as much side play as possible on any intermediate ones. I would still pick and choose the locos carefully, to avoid bogies as much as possible. An 0-6-0 looks a lot better on a tight curve than a 4-6-0. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Pointing out the differences is not a debate. No one is disagreeing with anyone. I wondered how long before someone accused it of being one! Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted October 9, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 9, 2011 Pointing out the differences is not a debate. No one is disagreeing with anyone. I wondered how long before someone accused it of being one! Cheers Jim It is about as predictable as somebody putting forward the benefits of P4 on an EM thread! Likewise the "P4 is easy" view being put forward. I had hoped not to see that one ever again! The idea that just compensating locos is "all the work" needed for P4 is not accurate at all. The whole P4 ethic is based on promoting improved modelling all round, not just on a correct track gauge. If that doesn't involve developing your skills to a higher level in all aspects of modelling, not just compensating locos, I don't see the point of it! The finer tolerances and smaller flanges on he wheels mean that track has to be built to a higher standard of accuracy than 00 or EM. It isn't just about the gauge, it requires better track joints and alignment too. Don't get me wrong, I admire and respect the work of some very skilled people working in P4. I know some quite well and have seen their brilliant work close up. None of them say that P4 is easy. They regard it as a challenge that they like to pit their skills against, rather than an easy ride. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Hi TBG Where has anything you put actually been said in this thread? All layouts should ideally be to a consistant standard, whatever that standard may be. I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Cost has to come into the equation too and converting 60 RTR steam locos and 100s of rolling stock items won't be that cheap! I thought most people just use the existing wheels moved apart a bit? If you pay someone to do all the coversions then yes it will be more expensive. I know some locos in the Hornby/Bachmann stable have deeper flanges and need new wheels but most modellers seem to push the wheels out. It is about as predictable as somebody putting forward the benefits of P4 on an EM thread! Likewise the "P4 is easy" view being put forward. I had hoped not to see that one ever again! The idea that just compensating locos is "all the work" needed for P4 is not accurate at all. I don't think anyone did mention it being easy, Jim just said to Robert has he considered P4 if he liked to compensate and spring stuff. I don't think this implied its the only difference or that it makes it easy. I'd also disagree that someone who can't produce buildings to the highest standards can use P4 track gauge incidentally. I do agree though it is about trying to improve more than just the track which is why I don't like seeing just out of a box stock with P4 wheels in.. Anyway, lets really not turn what was an informative thread into arguing about something no one said! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted October 9, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted October 9, 2011 Reading an old MRJ article about converting OO RTR to EM.... NE 4-6-2s for Retford. Interesting the use of Bic biro slithers as axle spacers. Now I do have some EM axles for a Spam, tempting to try a conversion out, hard bit will be choosing a Spam victim! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.