visual comparison of 00 vs EM vs P4 track?

[fender]

hi,

 

after some searching (from which I found a great comparison of various 00 tracks) I haven't been able to find a photo with all these gauges side-by-side. has this been done?

 

here's the kind of thing I'm after: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/75/entry-6609-comparing-track/

 

that's a great comparison of 00 gauges, and I've found one showing various OO against a P4, but what would really be good is one showing locos sitting on each of the tracks.

 

a lot to ask, I know! I've tried comparing the various gauges from individual pictures but it's not easy.

 

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Fender

 

Comparison of the gauge isnt actually the important bit. Its a comparison of the clearances that makes track look real or not.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[fender]

thanks for your replies.

 

the thing is, one thing that irks me, slightly, is the narrow wheel spacing of the front truck on a steam loco on OO track. I've seen pics of similar locos on P4 track, and that looks much better, but it would be better to see a comparison. I've seen plenty of pics of OO stock on OO track that look fantastic, so one part of me thinks I'd hardly notice the difference except from a few angles, dead-on perhaps. I've seen much OO track that looks excellent by itself, but looking down the line at a loco sometimes looks very model-like, even on FS track.

 

I find it's very difficult to tell with coaches, diesels, and other rolling stock, but because steam locos often have wheels right at the front, in clear view, those are the ones that can get away with OO the least, imo. I was hoping someone had done some sort of comparison, but maybe it's a little too specific.

[Gordon A]

Which 00 tracks do you wish to compare with P4?

Peco track is basically HO American. The sleepers are too close together, and are too short as they are the correct length for HO.

If you build 00 - 16.5mm gauge track using the correct length sleepers ie 34mm for 8ft 6", using code 75 rail, the track will look like narrow gauge from above or end on.

This is very apparent when you see the rails in relation to the buffers on the stock.

If you view 00 fine scale side on then the discrepancies are not that obvious, providing the wheels on your stock are to fine scale standards.

In general I would say tha P4 or a similar set of standards applied to fine scale track will give smoother running, especially through point and crossing work.

 

Modern 00 steam loco wheels still look quite coarse when compared to the P4 equivalent.

If no one else comes up with some pictures I will try and post some at the weekend.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[fender]

Which 00 tracks do you wish to compare with P4?

Peco track is basically HO American. The sleepers are too close together, and are too short as they are the correct length for HO.

If you build 00 - 16.5mm gauge track using the correct length sleepers ie 34mm for 8ft 6", using code 75 rail, the track will look like narrow gauge from above or end on.

This is very apparent when you see the rails in relation to the buffers on the stock.

If you view 00 fine scale side on then the discrepancies are not that obvious, providing the wheels on your stock are to fine scale standards.

In general I would say tha P4 or a similar set of standards applied to fine scale track will give smoother running, especially through point and crossing work.

 

Modern 00 steam loco wheels still look quite coarse when compared to the P4 equivalent.

If no one else comes up with some pictures I will try and post some at the weekend.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

 

Thanks very much Gordon, that would be great.

 

I must admit I hadn't considered that people change the wheels on OO-gauge stock. I was thinking of sticking with OO Peco track, regauging everything to EM, or just building C&L OO track, or something, thereby not having to change all the wheels. however, if I had to change the wheels as well to get the best look, maybe it would make more sense going straight to EM...

 

a ha! how about using OO FS track, but only changing the leading truck wheels on locos, to improve the front-on look?

[trisonic]

This subject has never ended well in the past...

Any mix of "standards" will end in frustration.

 

Best, Pete.

[fender]

This subject has never ended well in the past...

Any mix of "standards" will end in frustration.

 

Best, Pete.

 

hmmm...probably wise words. I'm sure there are a lot of potential pitfalls I'm not aware of.

 

I'm going to look into OO-gauge FS wheels and see what is involved vs EM.

[Guest Belgian]

Have a look at this thread, as I did when Andy York suggested it: it shows how 00 doesn't have to look toy-like. It certainly convinced me, and, I'm sure, judging by the numbers of people following Gordon S''s adventures, many others.

 

One factor seldom considered is that for the majority of the time one is looking side-on at one's models: head-on is usually the province of photographs. As Gordon A has said, sideways on there is little to show which actual gauge is in use. I have to say, I have always built my models at a fairly high level in order to get a realistic eye-level appearance - I'm not a bird so can't get a bird's-eye view of the real thing!

 

JE

 

PS: I am a 'rare bird' however, an ex-P4 modeller who is happy with modern 00!

[Guest stuartp]

Taking the basic premise that anything to do with 00 track is going to involve a compromise somewhere, a lot of the 'narrow gauge' look with 'scale' track is down to leaving the sleeper length at 8'6" and therefore finishing up with too much sleeper outside the rails. I notice that in the blog you linked too Mikkel has done this deliberately to represent pre-grouping 9'0" sleepers - if you build a bit of P4 or EM track with proper 9'0" sleepers (i.e. 36mm) you'll find it looks odd too, for exactly the same reason.

 

One of the commercial trackbases (C&L ?) trims a bit off the sleeper ends to avoid this, and bunches the sleepers a bit closer together - they're noticeably shorter than their EM track bases. Changing the front pony/bogie wheels for Gibsons or similar is a useful dodge which gives a better appearance even if you aren't using scale track. Hornby locos particularly benefit from this as a lot of theirs are let down by generic bogie wheels (Black 5, Duchess) although newer releases seem better (Brittania, Clan).

 

I went for EM years ago and ended up going back to 00 when it became clear that the new generation of RTR (Bachmann Crab and Hornby Black 5 onwards) were cosmetically better than what I could kit build, and I didn't have to spend weeks trying to get the chassis to work. I can live with the rails being too close together.

[fender]

Have a look at this thread, as I did when Andy York suggested it: it shows how 00 doesn't have to look toy-like. It certainly convinced me, and, I'm sure, judging by the numbers of people following Gordon S''s adventures, many others.

 

One factor seldom considered is that for the majority of the time one is looking side-on at one's models: head-on is usually the province of photographs. As Gordon A has said, sideways on there is little to show which actual gauge is in use. I have to say, I have always built my models at a fairly high level in order to get a realistic eye-level appearance - I'm not a bird so can't get a bird's-eye view of the real thing!

 

JE

 

PS: I am a 'rare bird' however, an ex-P4 modeller who is happy with modern 00!

 

thanks for that link. that layout looks very interesting and I've bookmarked it for further perusement.

 

I agree on the side-on vs front-on issue, but for my future layout I'd like to be able to get the most realistic pics possible (within the confines of my limited modelling skills!)

 

FS OO trackwork does look great, and most definitely not toy-like, but without re-wheeling everything it still doesn't look quite right dead-on.

 

I've been mulling this over for some time, but I think I'm going to join the EMGS and have a thorough read of all the stuff you get when joining. I still have to decide on exactly what I'll be modelling, but I don't think it will have a very extensive track plan, so I possibly wouldn't be biting off too much...we'll see. It's changing steam loco wheels that fills me with most trepidation, so I'm not sure if I'll be up to that...

[tender]

 

 

FS OO trackwork does look great, and most definitely not toy-like, but without re-wheeling everything it still doesn't look quite right dead-on.

 

I've been mulling this over for some time, but I think I'm going to join the EMGS and have a thorough read of all the stuff you get when joining. I still have to decide on exactly what I'll be modelling, but I don't think it will have a very extensive track plan, so I possibly wouldn't be biting off too much...we'll see. It's changing steam loco wheels that fills me with most trepidation, so I'm not sure if I'll be up to that...

 

Bachmann/Hornby can be run on 00-SF (this is what Gordon S is using) out of the box, it's different to DOGA FS 00 which is what C&L gauges are set for, although you can still use C&L/SMP straight track with 00-SF.

 

I think EM gauge and 00 gauge (post 2000) wheels flanges are more or less the same so if you want to improve the look of the wheels from the front you should be looking at P4.

 

[fender]

thanks very much for the advice everyone.

 

Mickey, thanks for the pic.

[Guest Belgian]

thanks for that link. that layout looks very interesting and I've bookmarked it for further perusement.

 

I agree on the side-on vs front-on issue, but for my future layout I'd like to be able to get the most realistic pics possible (within the confines of my limited modelling skills!)

 

FS OO trackwork does look great, and most definitely not toy-like, but without re-wheeling everything it still doesn't look quite right dead-on.

 

I've been mulling this over for some time, but I think I'm going to join the EMGS and have a thorough read of all the stuff you get when joining. I still have to decide on exactly what I'll be modelling, but I don't think it will have a very extensive track plan, so I possibly wouldn't be biting off too much...we'll see. It's changing steam loco wheels that fills me with most trepidation, so I'm not sure if I'll be up to that...

 

Here's another link, from Robbie in New Zealand. He has made photographing models into an art form. If you compare his final photograph in post 38 with his original one in post 34 (do it in that order!) you'll see he has done what you want to do, namely, thin the tyres of the wheels, but in photoshop rather than on the model itself. I think this is a great way to get your photographs to look more 'real' without having to go to the trouble and expense of modifying the track and stock in the first place.

 

Note that he started off with the loco straight out of the box, placed on standard Peco code 100 rails!

 

His final shot of the loco on a train (post 47) is simply stunning.

 

JE

[trisonic]

hmmm...probably wise words. I'm sure there are a lot of potential pitfalls I'm not aware of.

 

I'm going to look into OO-gauge FS wheels and see what is involved vs EM.

 

If you pick a "standard" and stick with it (track and wheels etc.) then you know someone else has already done all the hard work....

 

All the nonsense with OO thirty years ago made me move to HO American. At least there is a national standard over here (right or wrong). I only dabble in 4mm now because, after all, I am British.

 

Best, Pete.

[fender]

Here's another link, from Robbie in New Zealand. He has made photographing models into an art form. If you compare his final photograph in post 38 with his original one in post 34 (do it in that order!) you'll see he has done what you want to do, namely, thin the tyres of the wheels, but in photoshop rather than on the model itself. I think this is a great way to get your photographs to look more 'real' without having to go to the trouble and expense of modifying the track and stock in the first place.

 

Note that he started off with the loco straight out of the box, placed on standard Peco code 100 rails!

 

His final shot of the loco on a train (post 47) is simply stunning.

 

JE

 

that's true, and that's a great series of photos. the first (38 and a couple earlier) make me do a slight double-take before deciding it's a model, whereas post 34 is obviously a model straight away.

 

it is some food for thought, although I'd then have to learn how to use photoshop instead of how to change wheels.

[hayfield]

Fender

 

If you want better looking track then you will have to build your own turnouts.

 

Plain track in 00, EM & P4 can be obtained from C&L Exactoscale and SMP, you could build the turnouts from copperclad strip ( C&L or Marcway) but you will loose the chair detail, you will have the correct sleeper widths and spacing.

 

The biggest benefit of making your own turnouts, is to use scale plans again from the likes of C&L or SMP, or use Templot to design your own, These will look so much better than whats available in RTR.

 

You have the choice now of gauge, if you can put up with 16.5mm track gauge, it will save you lots of time and trouble changing the wheel sets / chassis. If you wish to narrow the gaps between the wing and check rails then you could go either the EM route or 00-SF ( some times called EM - 2(mm) ). Or go the whole hog and move into P4 if you are worried about the odd 0.63mm in track gauge and 0.34mm between wing and check rail gaps.

 

Using the Exactoscale special chairs for turnouts will actually move the apperance of your turnouts a bit further for a little extra work and expence. Using ply sleepers against plastic may again look better, however the costs of building turnouts is much the same either way, but plain track is much dearer than flexi track

 

You will just have to ballance up the pro's and con's of each choice. 00 gauge track will look far better than track which is based on H0 scale, EM and P4 even better

[fender]

thanks Hayfield, that was a nice summary.

 

it all depends on what I end up modelling, which in turn depends on the space available. if I do a branch line with only two or three locos, I'll consider going wider than OO, but probably EM instead of P4. on the other hand, if I do another section of the Cornish Main Line then it will definitely be OO as I'd probably end up buying lots more locos.

 

one thing that puts me off EM or P4 is the thought of having to build track for the fiddle yard(s) as well, although I suppose I could use sector plates or a traverser to make it easier.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Fender, I can't comment on the gauge issue but I feel your pain with regard to the view from head-on. Chunky wheels a no-no for me.

 

I'm going P:87, which is finescale HO, here's a comparison of three sets of standards for HO

 

 

from the left:

• P2K code .110 wheels with Kadee #5 coupler
  
• Intermountain code .088 semi-scale wheels with Kadee #58 semi-scale coupler
  
• Proto:87 code .064 scale wheels with Sergent Engineering scale coupler
  
• (not my photo, sorry I don't know who deserves the credit for it)
  

Its the combination of gauge/clearance/ tolerances that's important. I went for the finer scale because I'm familiar enough with the prototype to find wide treads and deep flanges visually jarring. When I look at OO steam locomotives, no matter how beautifully detailed and weathered they are, as soon as I look at them from 3/4 front on I just can't help noticing the narrow gauge and the wide treads - it spoils the appearance of the front end. Others clearly don;t mind it, so in the end go with what makes you happy.

[trisonic]

Thanks for going into further detail, Good Dr!

 

Perhaps you can just elucidate the difference in track between P87 and the old NMRA standards? I'm tending toward the middle route - boring old fart that I am.

 

Just to be clear the left hand wheels in your photo are to RP 25 standard - which to my understanding is what all the manufacturers of RTR 00 4mm are now using, except, of course in HO at 3.5mm to foot the gauge is (roughly) correct which translates to a narrower gauge in 4mm. The middle set is the so-called "88's" which can run on standard HO track if laid carefully whilst P87 can only be run on P87 (HO) track and is not interchangeable.

 

Personally I find the P87 Stores site a little confusing.......

 

Best, Pete.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Hey Pete, not sure I can elucidate at all, as it's all just numbers and blah to me. You can have a look here for details, but for me the final decider was the appearance of the track, particularly turnouts. I couldn't get past the peco code 83s looking plain wrong. P:87 turnouts look right.

 

 

once again, sorry I don't know who to credit the photo to - it's from my collection

[Grovenor]

one thing that puts me off EM or P4 is the thought of having to build track for the fiddle yard(s) as well,

Remember a fiddle yard does not need to have fully detailed track, building it yourself you can just use plain rail and widely spaced PCB sleepers making it both cheap and quick.

I have used, in the past, redundant code 100 rail just spiked to the board without any sleepers at all, works just fine for the plain track, even in P4.

Keith

[martin_wynne]

The middle set is the so-called "88's" which can run on standard HO track if laid carefully

 

Hi Pete,

 

Only if you don't mind them dropping in the crossings (frogs) with a bump.

 

There is no NMRA track standard for use with code 88 wheels (width 0.088" or 2.2mm). Standard H0 track has 1.2mm flangeways, so the total gap is 2.4mm even with sharp-nose vees. A thing 2.2mm wide can fall in a gap 2.4mm wide.

 

However, for these wheels Terry Flynn in Australia has an H0-SF standard for AMRA which is essentially the same dimensions as 00-SF on 16.2mm gauge. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that NMRA will adopt this officially, because it means moving away from an exact-scale track gauge, and their members just won't accept it however sensible an idea. It is however what is needed to run code 88 wheels successfully. As far as I know there is no H0 equivalent for DOGA Fine standard, using a wider back-to-back on these wheels.

 

The RP25/88 profile is essentially the same as the EMGS wheel profile, and for EM many modellers are now using RP25/88 wheels.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[trisonic]

Martin, They do not "drop bump" with every track system. We've been through this before! I know they should...

 

Best, Pete.

[fender]

Fender, I can't comment on the gauge issue but I feel your pain with regard to the view from head-on. Chunky wheels a no-no for me.

 

I'm going P:87, which is finescale HO, here's a comparison of three sets of standards for HO

 

 

from the left:

• P2K code .110 wheels with Kadee #5 coupler
  
• Intermountain code .088 semi-scale wheels with Kadee #58 semi-scale coupler
  
• Proto:87 code .064 scale wheels with Sergent Engineering scale coupler
  
• (not my photo, sorry I don't know who deserves the credit for it)
  

Its the combination of gauge/clearance/ tolerances that's important. I went for the finer scale because I'm familiar enough with the prototype to find wide treads and deep flanges visually jarring. When I look at OO steam locomotives, no matter how beautifully detailed and weathered they are, as soon as I look at them from 3/4 front on I just can't help noticing the narrow gauge and the wide treads - it spoils the appearance of the front end. Others clearly don;t mind it, so in the end go with what makes you happy.

 

that's the kind of thing I'm looking for. although it's not OO, it still shows the wheel differences nicely -thanks.

 

so, to be clear, as I think I've gathered from Martin's post, the central pic shows wheels that are very similar to EM (or what people are using for EM)?

 

either way, it's interesting to see the difference in the tyre widths (I think that's the correct lingo )

[martin_wynne]

Martin, They do not "drop bump" with every track system. We've been through this before! I know they should...

 

Hi Pete,

 

It's true that they won't drop every time, or maybe even most of the time. Everything depends on how the vehicle is loaded, the geometry of the turnout, the running speed, and especially on whether it is being drawn or propelled (pulled or pushed). But sooner or later a vehicle will be running with a wheel hard against the opposite rail. The other wheel will then be unsupported at the crossing (frog) and if it is carrying any load it will drop into it.

 

You cannot avoid the physical fact that a thing 2.2mm wide under load will drop into a gap 2.4mm wide (or wider if prototypical 1/2inch nose US vees are being modelled). The effect will be worse on flatter crossing angles and with smaller wheels, but present even on short crossings to some extent. You may be lucky and get away with it most of the time, but that's no way to build a proper working model.

 

Time and again over the years the importance of using matched wheel and track standards has been stressed. And now we have this miserable idea gaining ground in the US to set everything back decades and ensure a fresh load of misinformation doing the rounds for years to come.

 

regards,

 

Martin.