visual comparison of 00 vs EM vs P4 track?

[gordon s]

Found this thread very interesting as I enjoy the track element of our hobby. I noticed my layout had been mentioned a couple of times so thought you might be interested in this track formation.

 

It's taken a while to complete, but I've just finished this double junction in 00-SF. 16.2mm gauge and 1mm flangeways. The good news is that it will take most wheel standards, so I won't have to modify my stock. Of course it's not P4 or EM and only pcb construction, but it's a compromise I am prepared to make at this stage of my modelling life.

 

I would love to build in P4 and will try chaired construction one day, but right now I'm just happy to keep my layout build progressing.

 

[t-b-g]

Hi Tony,

 

You should be aware that the "fine" standard on the DOGA web site is for DOGA-Fine, with 1.0mm flangeways. As such, it requires the wheels to be widened to 14.7mm minimum back-to-back. 00 wheels are normally supplied at 14.4mm or 14.5mm back-to-back, and will jam across the check and wing rails if not widened.

 

If you have built the turnouts to 16.5mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways, hopefully the layout owner is aware of this and has built the whole layout to the same DOGA-Fine standard., and modified his rolling-stock accordingly.

 

That's a very neat turnout.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks for the tip off Martin. There won't be any problem in sorting the back to backs out on the stock but I am ready for it now!

 

Tony

[fender]

Found this thread very interesting as I enjoy the track element of our hobby. I noticed my layout had been mentioned a couple of times so thought you might be interested in this track formation.

 

It's taken a while to complete, but I've just finished this double junction in 00-SF. 16.2mm gauge and 1mm flangeways. The good news is that it will take most wheel standards, so I won't have to modify my stock. Of course it's not P4 or EM and only pcb construction, but it's a compromise I am prepared to make at this stage of my modelling life.

 

I would love to build in P4 and will try chaired construction one day, but right now I'm just happy to keep my layout build progressing.

 

 

thanks Gordon.

 

those points are enormous! really shows the benefit of building them yourself. so you've built those and the diamond crossing using PCB sleepers and the rest with pre-built flexi-track? it all looks excellent.

 

one thing I had been wondering if it is possible to add cosmetic 'chairs' to pcb-constructed track, or is it too much of a faff with the solder in the way, and having to cut all the chairs to size?

[gordon s]

You're welcome. I just wanted to show that 00 track can look acceptable if you are prepared to accept certain compromises. Head on it will always look narrow gauge, but most viewing is done from the side. Having quite a stock collection of various types, wheel changes would have been expensive and in reality converting steam locos to P4 way outside my current skill level. Chaired construction would be much better, but again I haven't progressed that far.

 

Apologies if I have this wrong but surely bullhead rail sits above the sleepers on the chairs, so adding cosmetic chairs would be wrong? In pcb construction the rail is soldered directly to the pcb and not with a gap. Cosmetic chairs may look better than solder simulated ones, but would still be wrong so I can't really see the point of adding hours of work.

 

These two turnouts are C10's and are 90" radius and measure 380mm to top to toe. Yes they take up space, but this will be main line running and as such they needed to be large, even though I suspect they are still way below prototype radius.

[Bernard Lamb]

I just wanted to show that 00 track can look acceptable if you are prepared to accept certain compromises.

 

Apologies if I have this wrong but surely bullhead rail sits above the sleepers on the chairs, so adding cosmetic chairs would be wrong? In pcb construction the rail is soldered directly to the pcb and not with a gap. Cosmetic chairs may look better than solder simulated ones, but would still be wrong so I can't really see the point of adding hours of work.

 

These two turnouts are C10's and are 90" radius and measure 380mm to top to toe. Yes they take up space, but this will be main line running and as such they needed to be large, even though I suspect they are still way below prototype radius.

 

Nail hit firmly on head.

In many circumstances 00 can look as good as EM.

The radius can have a bigger influence on this than the gauge.

I find 48" to be the minimum practical radius when using stock with scale couplings.

If you do not have room for this then any thought of using nearer to scale gauges than the various 00 offerings becomes meaningless.

It's getting things to work that is the vital factor as far as I am concerned.

P4 for me needs at least a 6' minimum radius if the full benefit of the improved look is to come across.

Re chairs and bullhead rail.

I agree with you when using PCB construction.

Cosmetic chairs come into their own when using ply and rivet as the rivet head holds the bottom of the rail proud of the sleper.

Bernard

[Guest jim s-w]

Id agree with that Bernard. 4ft curves work fine in p4 but look a bit odd if they are scenic. 6ft minium for a scenic curve is about right (imho)

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[martin_wynne]

one thing I had been wondering if it is possible to add cosmetic 'chairs' to pcb-constructed track, or is it too much of a faff with the solder in the way, and having to cut all the chairs to size?

 

Bullhead rails are raised above the level of the sleepers by the thickness of the base of the chair casting (1.3/4" which scales to 0.6mm in 4mm/ft scale). On copper-clad model track the rail is soldered directly to the sleepers. It is therefore physically impossible to fit cosmetic half-chairs as supplied -- on the outside the key will not locate into the rail web, and on the inside the chair jaw will foul the wheel flanges. To fit such cosmetic chairs most of the base part must be cut off, which is an inordinate amount of work and still doesn't look right.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

Thanks for the kind comments!

 

I hadn't noticed how far the blades/closure rails had slipped away from the wing rails when I took the photo! The gap is a lot smaller than that when they are set up properly. I agree, some nice cosmetic fishplates would finish it off nicely.

I am not sure what scale the point is myself. The gauge is 16.5mm but as it is based on an EM gauge Society template, reduced in size on a computer to make the gauge 16.5mm (I think it was 94% or something similar). The check rail gaps are to OO standards, although there seem to be several versions, there are two versions on the OO gauge Society website so I went for the "fine" one. The sleeper spacing and length is not 4mm:1ft but is in proportion to the track gauge so it is not OO gauge.

 

It isn't HO because 4mm componenets have been utilised for the rail, sleepers and chairs. I was asked to produce some realistic looking points for a OO layout and came up with that as a compromise. Is it OO/HO, combining elements from both? I used to dislike that descripion whenever I saw it on model railway stuff but perhaps it applies here.

 

Tony

 

Tony

 

As I have said the turnout looks super and much better than something out of a box, but just a couple of points from your reply.

 

The Exactoscale plastic fishplates whilst very fragile are functional not cosmetic, they are strong enough to hold the rail in place whilst the glue or solvent is setting. And as I said they look so much better than rail joiners.

 

The length of turnouts in 00, EM and P4 differ. So you may not be too far off being the correct length for 00 gauge, you are using 4mm components and the sleeper spacing may not be too far off being correct as from what little I understand about turnouts there are maximum spacings between sleepers but not minimum. Templot is now a free software program so there is no need to scale down plans anymore

[hayfield]

Found this thread very interesting as I enjoy the track element of our hobby. I noticed my layout had been mentioned a couple of times so thought you might be interested in this track formation.

 

It's taken a while to complete, but I've just finished this double junction in 00-SF. 16.2mm gauge and 1mm flangeways. The good news is that it will take most wheel standards, so I won't have to modify my stock. Of course it's not P4 or EM and only pcb construction, but it's a compromise I am prepared to make at this stage of my modelling life.

 

I would love to build in P4 and will try chaired construction one day, but right now I'm just happy to keep my layout build progressing.

 

 

Gordon

 

I firmly believe that if you are building a large, layout copper clad turnout construction is not only totally acceptable (especially when built by a craftsman like yourself), but once ballasted, painted and weathered from normal viewing distances gives the correct impression of scaled down trackwork. Look at the photos which are at a longer distance, mostly chairs are too small / out of focus to be seen

 

On the other hand if a small layout is being built normally the eye is being drawn into the finer detail rather the overall vista, chaired track , point rodding and signal wiring runs are more noticeable by their absence.

 

A well made and presented copperclad turnout wins out all day against a badly made and poorly presented chaired turnout. I also think that RTR turnouts fall into the latter catagory because their geometry to my eye is wrong for UK 4mm scale

[Guest jim s-w]

No no no, absolutely 100% no!

 

Big layouts do not 'have' to be dumbed down. Why do people think that is OK? Its almost as if people think they have a finite amount of effort to put into something and the bigger a layout is the more watered down it needs to be. Im sorry but this kind of 'logic' is straight from the BRM editorials of old, "its only a hobby, dont try too hard!"

 

Look at a typical exhibition, are the viewers any further away from a big layout than a small one? Of course they aren't. If theres a 10 foot layout or a 50 ft one does the viewer see any more from thier location? Not likely.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[trisonic]

On the other hand, Jim, not all of us have the foresight and patience to plan on spending decades completing a layout for exhibition.

 

I applaud your efforts which are never less than brilliant but others are worthy too.

 

Best, Pete.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi pete

 

Im never said they arent but the small and detailed vs big and dumb mentality has been arround for decades and people just seem to accept it as 'thats just how it is'

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[trisonic]

Oh, I see what you mean, Jim.......yes, I agree.

 

Mind you I must say that even your patience would be tested if you were trying to do New Street from here - more and more critical UK suppliers will not ship to the USA for "insurance reasons"....made me throw in the towel for P4 (that and I really needed to attend some Workshops on the subject).

 

Still after this I am once more tempted to try P87 again, starting with a modest "test" diorama.

 

Apologies for the misunderstanding, Pete.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi pete

 

I have noticed a lot of people (not just model railways) clamping down on the locations they ship too. Some shiping costs from the us to here seem to have gone through the roof too. But thats another discussion i suppose.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[goodmayes]

A few years back, I was at a Bay Area NMRA meet where the guy who does the Proto:87 stuff in California gave a hands-on clinic. He had us just swap wheels on some RTR box cars and then let us push them around on some desktop 18" radius Atlas sectional track.The wheels were amazing in they looked absolutely fine scale, but they all stayed on the track just like regular HO wheels

 

His spiel was that going P87 from HO has a big advantage over P4 from. 00, because you don't have to start-over and hand-lay all your track to a different gauge. Just change the frogs and check rails on the track you already have, even if it's atlas, peco, flex, hand-laid or whatever. Which kinda fits well in the US culture of big layouts and getting lots of track laid quickly, so you can move on to operations. But even that doesn't seem to have caught on over here. I'm sold, but most US modellers seem more concerned with the magazines' idea of buying as many RTR locos and cars as possible, and not worrying about the accuracy or looks of what you run them on.

 

Ted

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

 

Still after this I am once more tempted to try P87 again, starting with a modest "test" diorama.

 

 

Pete, I'm right there with you. My latest plank is P87, I'm waiting for the turnouts to arrive from California as we speak. It's very much in the spirit of a practical test, as I want to see what I can achieve. So far, I'm least looking forward to rewheeling my locomotives - freight cars are a straight swap, which I've already done once...

 

Once the bits are all together and I start making progress I shall be writing it all up on my blog. Could also post here on RMWeb if folk are interested.

 

I've been driven to P87 just because my locos looked great, and conventional HO track looked rubbish. I couldn't stand the mismatch. I've seen the light, thanks to Jim S-W.

 

Mr Reichert does offer a good and comprehensive service to help.

 

And now, back to the O/T

[trisonic]

Yes, please, Dr.

 

You're way ahead of me.....I'm going to be using a minimum of #8's per the specs of a local shortline here in Jersey.

Will you be making your own track? I've got craploads of Code 70 ME...

 

Best, Pete.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Pete,

 

I've ordered some #9s rtr from Andy Reichert - he's offering them ready built and I figure once I've seen how they should look, I can complete my two kits that are sitting in a box laughing at me.

 

All code 83, and according to another novice P87er I chat to, you can use Peco plain track just fine. As Ted said earlier, P87 is somewhat easier than P4 as we can use off-the-shelf track, as only wheelsets and the turnouts need to be redone.

 

Pictures and a new thread as soon as they arrive, don't want to hog this one too much.

[Darwinian]

I'm a bit late to this topic but here's my addition to the discussion. Fender specifically asked about head on views so here I grabbed a couple of shots of an unmodified and modified Hornby loco. Both are standing on the C&L flexi track on my layout.

 

First up a Bullied light pacific as it comes:

 

 

Then a 28xx with the front pony wheels only replaced by Gibson wheels:

 

 

Both locos run through my hand built C&L pointwork although they do bump and grind a bit in places. The worst running wheelsets were the tender wheels on the 28xx and I had to move them out on their axles as they were under gauge even for 14.5mm BtoB.

 

Yes i know the 1st 2 of the buffer beam number of 2828 has fallen rubbed off .

 

Adrian

[fender]

very nice^^^thanks Adrian.

 

the Gibson wheels do look so much better. the first pic is exactly what I'm talking about with the look of the wider tyres on 00 track, and it's amazing to see the difference just the wheels can make.

 

learned a lot in this thread. thanks again!

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I've taken the liberty of nicking a shot from The Laird's Bradfield Gloucester Square to illustrate my personal issue with OO, particularly steam outline. Now The Laird's trackwork is, I think we can all agree, about as good as it gets in OOFS. It looks lovely.

 

However, the Black Five on it suffers from steam roller wheels and a general lack of refinement in the wheels/dangly bits department. Now that's not meant to be critical of the model - in most aspects it looks just super. But for me, the front end of rolling stock is something I seem to see more of than sideways on, so 'thin' wheels and all manner of springy bits and iron work should be there. What's pleasantly surprising is how little the missing 2.33mm offends my eye. I had to check back to page one of the BGS thread to see if it really was OO gauge! I knew it would be, 'cos of the steam roller wheels....

 

 

In the end it's personal taste, what you can live with, and how much work you;re prepared to do to put something right that bothers you. I think I could live with the narrow gauge, but not the wide treads and lack of stuff under the buffer beams. As a minimum I'd look at replacing wheels with the Gibsons in Adrian's post above.

 

But I don't have to worry as I'm modelling P:87, so no missing mills for me

[martin_wynne]

What's pleasantly surprising is how little the missing 2.33mm offends my eye. I had to check back to page one of the BGS thread to see if it really was OO gauge! I knew it would be, 'cos of the steam roller wheels....

 

00 gauge doesn't have to mean wide RTR wheels. You can change them to thin Ultrascale wheels and still run on 00-SF track. See loco 3 on Gordon's video:

 

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Darwinian]

Yep, changing the wheels makes a big difference to the appearance, however getting rid of the coupler pocket on the front truck helped the appearance on my 28xx too . I also added the rod that runs across between the pony truck side frames although it is too dark to see above. Wish I'd done something about the guard irons though. Maybe when I get around to replacing the tender wheelsets i'll do it.

 

There aren't a lot of dangly bits on the front of a 28xx and the coupling is slightly compromised because I use Dingham's. I have put on the hook at the corner of the buffer on the right that the coupling should hang from but can't get the coupling to remain attached to it. Other locos do have all the dangly bits I can manage and that helps disguise the missing 2.33mm too.

 

Of course you can replace all the wheel sets using a conversion pack (Gibson or Ultrascale both do them) but I haven't done that yet, although suspect I will eventually.

 

Adrian

[Darwinian]

Oh just realised.

The Bradfield Square loco shown by Dr Gerbil-Fritters can't have dangly bits below the buffer beam because it has the bar part of a sprat and winkle type coupler in the way. I have a similar issue providing clearance for the Dingham loop to operate but it's at buffer beam level not below.

 

Adrian