EM Gauge - Less hassle than P4?

[Pannier Tank]

Hi all sorry for hi jack,

but I've got a few ultrascale 00 gauge wheels and I've got a wheel puller so can I pull them out to em gauge or do I need to sell them and buy some em gauge ones?

 

Many thanks as always

Craig

You could buy replacement EM axles from Ultrascale.

[Guest notascoobie]

What do you mean "those"? AFAIK there is only one attempting this -- and not necessarily succeeding............

So not using P4 wheels and not using track to P4 standards - so not P4 perhaps?

 

That's me told.

 

Do I have to ask for permission to post on here? It certainly seems so. I got some aggressive responses to a fairly innocuous observation.

 

I will just leave it to you experts to tell me how it is and be thankful.

[Welly]

Not entirely a foolproof idea, as there is S4! I think exactoscale wheels are to S4 dimensions, ie exact scale, P4 is still a compromise.

My impression is that S4 is a standard pursued by a very very small minority of fine scale modellers, the most striking difference being that the flangeway width of S4 trackwork is 0.1mm narrower than P4. Also I understand that S4 wheels can run on P4 track but P4 wheels cannot run on S4 track.

[Welly]

Gibson's use the same profile for OO and EM.

 

Ultrascale used to do four different profiles: OO, EM, EMF, and 18.83. I think they will still do EMF, but worth asking first.

This is what put me off EM - there appears to be 3 different commercially made wheel profiles for EM. Even if EMF is no longer available, then which profile should one adopt for EM - Gibson or Ultrascale? I don't want to be committed to one manufacturer's EM wheel profile for my modelling, I'd rather buy P4 wheels from both of them.

[billbedford]

S4 modellers use standard P4 wheels, Only the flangeway gap and the back-to-back differ.

[t-b-g]

Martin is still buying EMF anyway .

 

I've seen quite a few people generate their own 'standard' through dodgy gauge use anyway, its all fine too unless its in a club situation

 

Wasn't that how P4 started? A few modellers deciding to create their own standards, knowing that nobody elses stuff would run on their track and they couldn't run their stuff on anybody elses.

 

In fact, isn't that how pretty much every development in our hobby is made? Somebody willing to take a chance and try something new and different.

[t-b-g]

This is what put me off EM - there appears to be 3 different commercially made wheel profiles for EM. Even if EMF is no longer available, then which profile should one adopt for EM - Gibson or Ultrascale? I don't want to be committed to one manufacturer's EM wheel profile for my modelling, I'd rather buy P4 wheels from both of them.

 

The answer is that they ALL work. You don't have to stick to one manufacturer for EM.

 

I have locos with Ultrascale, Gibson, Romford, Sharman, Markits, Bachmann and Hornby wheels. EM standards are loose enough to allow them all to work, although they all probably have slightly different profiles.

[Mod5]

If 'some' wish to turn this thread into the usual gauge war nonsense they would be better to post elsewhere about sommething else. This is a thread that has been discussed in a reasoned and sensible manner. If we could keep it like that then the thread can stay open if not.......

[Neil]

If it's any help to get things back where they should be

 

I have a question for all those who have been happy with their EM modelling for the last quarter century:-

 

If they were starting out on their finescale modelling career today, as the OP is, would they choose EM or P4? ie would they go for the safe and slightly staid world of EM or the exciting leap into the unknown world of P4?

 

And would the possible advent of RTR P4 locos influence their decision?

 

The answer would be that I swapped from 00 to EM about 10-15 years ago; P4 being seriously considered at the time. If I was contemplating the same choices today I think that EM would still win out over P4 for a couple of reasons.

 

Track

 

I had been building my own points in 00 (finescale) and reading up on the subject I realised that I wouldn't have to upgrade my skills to work in EM as it is essentially 00 (finescale) with the rails a bit further apart. I knew, again from experience working in 00, that there are places where gauges cant go during point construction and that the gauges themselves have tollerances, made to an exact fit the rail would be a force fit. I know what I can get away with and where in 00 and EM, I'd be a whole lot less confident that I could get away with some of the compromises that have become part of my bag of tricks.

 

Stock

 

I'm a cheapskate, I didn't want to buy new wheels for everything. EM works fine with 00 wheels pulled out to gauge on their original axles. It could offend the engineering sensibilities of some but this hack and bodge approach works not only with the obvious Bachmann diesels, but I have EM versions of the 'Underground Ernie' mechanism and the split axle HO 6w Plymouth shunter chassis.

 

It pleases me to take cheap and simple stuff and push it as far as I can. I get far more fun thinking my own way round the problems that crop up than by buying bespoke (and expensive to my mind) sets of Ultrascales and P4 point company kits. However there's sufficient common ground for me to see why others find the finest standards more attractive; I can appreciate and admire their work, but it's not the choice I would make for myself.

[hayfield]

If it's any help to get things back where they should be.

 

It pleases me to take cheap and simple stuff and push it as far as I can. I get far more fun thinking my own way round the problems that crop up than by buying bespoke (and expensive to my mind) sets of Ultrascales and P4 point company kits.

 

Neil

 

I can fully agree with you on your reply about why to go with EM gauge, and its good to get back on track. However turnouts kits can be expensive in any gauge if you buy the parts ready machined and soldered up.

 

Within a few pennies (EM & P4 turnouts of the same size are slightly longer than in 00) turnouts, the cost is the same.

 

A small to medium turnout will cost about £4 each in copperclad construction, providing you make all the parts. Chaired track using ply or plastic sleepers the cost of parts is about £8 to £9. This is compared to a full kit provided by C&L at £33.

 

I have limited experance in building P4 turnouts and nothing complicated at that. I found when building a standard turnout there was little or no difference from building an EM gauge one. In fact I prefer to build in EM gauge (and given the last sentance P4) & 00-SF to 00, simply as there is a gauge for each task and the B to B is more uniform.

[Tim Hale]

Neil,

 

Thank you for one of the most sensible and cohesive posts that I have read in a long while. Some truly excellent and appropriate observations on this subject.

 

Tim

[Jol Wilkinson]

I think that Neil's post #110 sustains an incorrect belief - that building P4 track accurately is more diificult than in other 4mm gauges - or perhaps indicate that a belief that accurate trackwork standards aren't so important in two other gauges.

 

If you build trackwork using a set of jigs and follow the correct sequence, then there should be no variation in the resulting product. Of course, one of the dificulties is that 00 has not had any consistently applied standards. So what standard do you apply and will that always match the wheels on the stock you are running? Good running is improved by closely matching wheel/track standards, which is why they they regard it as important on the 12"/foot railway.

 

Ultrascale wheels are expensive, put there are other options. There is no doubt that RTR is usually be the cheapest option so if cost is your main consideration, then both EM and P4 will be ruled out. RTR is easier to modify to EM, but it isn't always just a question of increasing the wheel B2B. However, if building models is your main interest and realism/accuracy is your chief interest, then surely there is little to choose between "finescale" 00, EM and P4.

 

As I said in an earlier posting, moving to P4 and having to work to a set of consistent "standards" enabled me to produce steam outline locos that ran better than on more realistic looking trackwork than I had ever been able to do in 00. I am still learning and improving what I do, but would hope that would still be the case in EM. If I had stayed with 00, I wonder if I would have learned the same skills and techniques, as there would have been less motivation or need to do so.

 

So EM or P4? As we now have a much wider choice of products than 25 years ago P4 is easier than it was, but EM is probably "faster". I would still commend the use of some P4 "techniques" I have learned if modelling EM (or 00) as they work well. I have two four coupled compensated locos with pickups on driving axles only, which will run well all day long under exhibition conditions. They have steel tyred wheels with PB strip pickups and small brass pads at the pickup/tyre contact point. I doubt that I could build a "rigid" chassis loco that would do the same, even with more axles.

 

Jol

[Neil]

I think that Neil's post #110 sustains an incorrect belief - that building P4 track accurately is more diificult than in other 4mm gauges - or perhaps indicate that a belief that accurate trackwork standards aren't so important in two other gauges. .....

 

I believe that what we have here is the crux of the issue, and in the interests of transparency I'd like to make it clear (if it wasn't clear in my last post) that though I've built oodles of points, some quite complex, in 00, EM and 009 I've never built a P4 point. Now logically if I built EM gauge track to the same level of accuracy required for P4 the level of difficulty would be the same, but I don't. I work with hand tools, cardboard jigs and similar low tech/low cost aids to construction. I have inadvertently had this lesser level of accuracy demonstrated to me by a friend who again inadvertently had a mix of P4 and EM profiled wheelsets on a wagon he brought round for a run out on Morfa. Though it ran ok through the pointwork some of the time, it also failed to run through without derailing some of the time. The rest of his stock with pukka EM profile wheels ran through with a 100% success rate.

 

I'm fortunate to have friends who are no slouches when it comes to building track, and who practice in both 00 (EM narrow gauge) and P4; they tell me that they have to take more time and care with pointwork in P4.

 

I can understand the enthusiasm that P4 practitioners have for their chosen standards, there's huge satisfaction to be had from getting things spot on. I also think that it's admirable that great strides have been made to de-elite-ify the perception of the standards, but I do wonder if 'as easy as 00 or EM' is really the best sales pitch to potential entrants.

 

I could argue that EM pointwork is as easy as Peco Streamline, Marcway sell off the peg EM points at a price not too far from the comparable Peco items. This perhaps misses the point though, if an individual is looking at EM and P4 as a possible direction to move in from 00, there's a better then even chance they'll be looking to hone their skills a bit, and do a bit more for themselves. In this context I don't think there's any shame in saying that the compromise (for all decisions come with compromise) in EM is in appearance and that in P4 is the extra time and care that needs to be taken.

 

Edit: I'd like to add that I don't feel one set of standards to be 'better' than the other, but they may 'better suit' an individuals preferences or priorities.

[Armchair Modeller]

I have built trackwork in a variety of gauges and have no strong pro-P4 leanings. I have not personally found any greater skill required to build P4 pointwork. Indeed, my impression is that the tightness of the standards makes it quicker and easier to make smooth running track. You are more likely to get it right first time. With other, less precise standards I have often found you have to fettle things a bit to get the best running.

[hayfield]

Neil

 

I think you are understating your abilities, and I and others may be missing the point you are making.

 

If one is using P4 gauges to build a turnout and you have a reasonable level of skills, there should be no problem building a P4 turnout and P4 wheelsets using them without any problems.

 

However in laying both track and turnouts I guess you would have to take much more care to ensure all is flat and level, given the sizes of flanges etc. On that basis I can see and agree with your point of view on track building.

 

Ps I am on your side as I think EM gauge wins on my own straw pole

[t-b-g]

It is good to see well thought out and well put points in a sensible debate.

 

I am not even sure that there even need to be "sides" in a discussion on such matters. Both sets of standards work and both can give good results in running. It seems to me that there is a general agreement that P4 gives a better visual appearance, particularly in the area of point flangeways and wheel profile. There also seems to be a general view that P4 requires more time and care than EM, particularly with regard to track alignment at rail joints. A slight disprecancy in EM, we can work with. The same discrepancy in P4 will need to be rectified.

 

If I wasn't so committed to EM, being involved in several joint projects with other EM folk, I might very well have had a go at P4 and I am pretty sure that I would have got it to run as well as my EM stuff. When I made the change from OO to EM it was because of other people I was involved with at the time. If they had been P4 modellers I would probably have a quite different view now!

 

I really do admire P4 modellers and the work they do. The lovely Bramblewick (what a loss Tom Harland's was) Chris Pendlenton's wonderful North Shields (or is it South - I never can remember!), Steve Hall's Halifax King Cross, Burntisland and Adavoyle have all inspired me greatly, as have other layouts. They all have one thing in common. They are the work of highly skilled people, who were willing to take their time and develop their skills to achieve the best possible results.

 

I am not anti P4 in any way and if I gave that impression it was wrong of me to do so. However I always think that the best work done in P4 is accomplished by people who want to challenge themselves and raise the bar of their modelling abilities. Good P4 modelling does not generally come from people who do it because it is quick and easy. Several very good P4 modellers have said exactly that to me!

 

Therefore, I will maintain that EM is indeed, less hassle than P4.

 

Not better, or worse, just different and less hassle!

[mike morley]

Everyone has things they are good at and things they are not so good at.

 

The weakest of my many weak points is building pointwork and when I first went EM I spent a very long time suspecting I'd bitten off more than I could chew. At one point I approached one of the expert demonstrators at an exhibition in search of help and it rapidly became apparent that his skill levels were so far above mine he could not even comprehend, never mind suggest a way of overcoming, my problems.

 

I wonder if those who insist that P4 is no more difficult than EM are those who found the knack easy to acquire so never had to appreciate just how vital the greater tolerances of EM are to those whose skills are inferior to theirs?

[t-b-g]

Everyone has things they are good at and things they are not so good at.

 

The weakest of my many weak points is building pointwork and when I first went EM I spent a very long time suspecting I'd bitten off more than I could chew. At one point I approached one of the expert demonstrators at an exhibition in search of help and it rapidly became apparent that his skill levels were so far above mine he could not even comprehend, never mind suggest a way of overcoming, my problems.

 

I wonder if those who insist that P4 is no more difficult than EM are those who found the knack easy to acquire so never had to appreciate just how vital the greater tolerances of EM are to those whose skills are inferior to theirs?

 

Very good point (sorry for the awful pun!). I have built hundreds of points, pretty much all in EM. I know that if I get something slightly out (I don't mean big discrepancies, just that a gauge is a little tight when placed over the rails) that the point will still work, with no detriment to smooth running. There are some bits that have to be spot on, like a good pointy blade end and alignment through the crossing nose but a few "thou" out in track gauge makes no odds.

 

The gauge on "Buckingham" varies between about 17.5mm to 18.5mm but that was made using blocks of wood for track gauges and the variation does not cause any problems at all. If I took some close up photos of some of the pointwork it would make any PWay engineer have instant kittens but the fact is that they work.

 

So I know that I can be slightly less than 100% accurate, which saves me lots of time correcting minor faults.

 

Reading that back, it reads almost like "finescale heresy" but it is just my personal experience of working in EM.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi All

 

Reading the last 2 posts you might think that EM gauge modellers dont use gauges but measure things or do it all by eye.

 

Clearences through a frog of a point (for example) have to be accurate to the standards being used, It doesnt matter what those standards are but it is not accurate then a wheel will either jam or fall into the gap at the vee. Neither of which is how it should work.

 

I think theres an element of urban myth here though, invariable started by old school P4 modellers who liked to make out what they were doing as special or above the efforts of others, that P4 has to be exact. Quite simply it doesnt and a few thou (as mentioned by tbg) in the right place is not actually a problem.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Horsetan]

......I think theres an element of urban myth here though, invariable started by old school P4 modellers who liked to make out what they were doing as special or above the efforts of others, that P4 has to be exact....

 

No no no, that's S4.

[Neil]

.... I think theres an element of urban myth here though, invariable started by old school P4 modellers who liked to make out what they were doing as special or above the efforts of others, that P4 has to be exact. Quite simply it doesnt and a few thou (as mentioned by tbg) in the right place is not actually a problem.

 

 

t-b-g mentions a variation of roughly -30 to +10 thou, I always try to err on the side of wide to gauge especially at the toe of the point and the curved route through the vee (I am fully aware of the irony that I may have P4 pointwork at places); I'd be very interested to know if P4 standards are so accommodating?

[Andy C]

Being in the strange position of actually building trackwork for both of my layouts at this moment in time (Im putting some extra roads in New Hey's fiddle yards (EM) and also at trackbuilding stage for North Ballachulish (P4) allows me to make a direct comparison and as I did this task yesterday, pretty objective as well too.

 

First of all hands up, I'm no stranger to trackbuilding so building a turnout is a fairly natural function to me, whatever medium Im using to build them. Yesterday i put together a B6 for New Hey and finsihed off a B8 for North Ballachulish. I did the B6 in copperclad as its going on the fiddleyard and it took me (using the South hants jig for filing and setting up the common crossing, I file my own blades on the bench) just around a hour from first cut to having finished product on the bench. Like I say, its meat and drink to me and i work relatively fast, but still have a good turnout at the end of the process.

 

The B8 is a P4 track co kit. This took me longer, maybe 2 and a half hours in the build. The chief difference here is i had to: 1 work out via the instructions which chair went where and ID them on the sprue, and 2, thread the b*gg*rs on. OK the crossing and the blades come prepped so you can factor that out but even with the P4 Track co kits I still use gauges to make sure everything is true.

 

At the end of yesterday I had two turnouts, both equally as mechanically good as each other, but the P4 variant looking better - well it would, its for public viewing, plus the closer check gauges make it look prototypical. Neither took me any greater effort than the other (discounting selecting and threading chairs on, but that would be the same if it was in EM), they were both built with the same amount of care and precision, If i'd built the P4 one in copperclad it would have taken me exactly the same time as the EM variant, after all the components are exactly the same, just laid slightly closer together. I take exactly the same amount of care and attention to this last bit if it was P4, EM or even - dare I say it OO.

 

So there you are, no real extra effort, the same amount of care and attention, its just that P4 trackwork actually looks that bit better

[sixteen 12by 10s]

Lets get back on track, so to speak. The whole aim of modeling is to try and make the miniature version look as realistic as the real thing. When I look at a layout, I can easily tell the difference from 00, and EM, but find it difficult to spot the difference between EM and P4.

Now, lets have a look at today's RTR wheel standards, they are a lot finer than I previous times, and with a little tweaking, and re gauging, will run on EM standard trackwork. Just for example, my diesel's run on Bachmann coach wheels, a loot of my converted RTR stuff is just re gauged.

So, I will say, that EM IS a lot less hassle than P4, and if you can put up with, the slightly coarser track and wheel standards, it's the one for you.

 

Gary

[Neil]

There seems to be such a spread of opinion here and in discussion with friends amongst those with both P4 and 00/EM experience that the only true way to form an opinion is to give it a go. I note that Andy uses different aids than I do, both with the filing jig (EM) and the kit (P4). If I had more time (unlikely as I already have lots of playtime) or fewer projects on the go (even more unlikely as there's so much I find interesting) I'd give it a go.

 

I have a suspicion that the truth may be that some will find P4 as easy as EM or 00, but some will find it harder.

[Guest jim s-w]

Lets get back on track, so to speak. The whole aim of modeling is to try and make the miniature version look as realistic as the real thing. When I look at a layout, I can easily tell the difference from 00, and EM, but find it difficult to spot the difference between EM and P4.

Now, lets have a look at today's RTR wheel standards, they are a lot finer than I previous times, and with a little tweaking, and re gauging, will run on EM standard trackwork. Just for example, my diesel's run on Bachmann coach wheels, a loot of my converted RTR stuff is just re gauged.

So, I will say, that EM IS a lot less hassle than P4, and if you can put up with, the slightly coarser track and wheel standards, it's the one for you.

 

Gary

 

Hi Gary

 

The big difference between 00 and EM is the gauge. The check rail clearances are very similar and in that respect it looks no different. The gap is wider than the rail head and as such doesn't look like the real thing. With p4 track the gap is narrower and does look like the real thing.

 

The guage difference between 16.5 and 18.2 is hard to judge sometimes however the relationship of the check rails and the gaps which are all together is much more obvious (if you understand that's how it should be).

 

It's up to each person to decide if this matters or not. If it is the thing you notice (we all notice different things) then really there's little advantage of EM over 00.

 

Cheers

 

Jim