EM/P4 forum

[Wellyboots]

The purpose of my suggestion was not to foster elitism, but to identify a 'go to' place for information and advice. However, sadly it would appear that that is not possible on RMW.

 

But there are a number of places already, the basic fact is that most modelling information is non gauge, and to a large extent non scale, specific, and RMWeb already has a large number of sub-forums catering for the various aspects of railway modelling and the prototype as well.

 

The only difference between 00 and EM/P4 is that you will need to build your own track and there is already a sub forum for 'Handbuilt Track', even then most of the information will be relevant to any gauge. You will also have to regauge your rolling stock for which the 'Kitbuilding & Scratchbuilding' and the 'Modifying and Detailing RTR stock' sub forums would be the place to look. If all else fails then, as already said, you could ask a question, the  'Modelling Questions, Help and Tips' section would probably be a good place to start.

 

But it all depends on what information you want to know, tell us what you're looking for and we might be able to help.  

[Jol Wilkinson]

truffy,

 

although some existing forums do cover the same 4mm ground, irrespective of gauge, there are some areas of difference which might benefit from a dedicated forum. Converting locos chassis to EM or P4 is rarely covered as far as I can see (although this does appear often on the S4 forum). The same applies to converting carriages with sprung compensated bogies. Wagons get rather better coverage on RMWeb, but I think that is due more to enthusiastic wagon builders using some of the etched kits and detailing items that are available.

 

However, I remain of the view that the open access to the S4 Society forum and the ability to ask questions though the guest book will provide the help you need if you want to look at using P4 wheel/track.

 

Jol

[ikks]

Hi All,

          I recently joined the EM Gauge Society, many years ago was a member of the ProtoFour Society(remember that one!!) I'm sure that the S4 society would have as much to offer as both but my feelings are that if there was a dedicated forum on here for each or both,it would be beneficial for members wishing to pursue their chosen aims far more easily. It is time to forget "elitism"garbage and let each of us do what we like.This Forum offers so much for all of us and whether is ,00,EM, P4, ,S,N,or whatever, it doesn't matter. There are aspects from many of the theads from which we can all learn, let's just mke it easier for Truffy(and me,beginners obviously) to find what we want to.

 

Mike

[truffy]

The only difference between 00 and EM/P4 is that you will need to build your own track

Actually, if it came down to that I'd probably run a mile! But it seems that P4 and EM track can be purchased ready-made, and not so expensive that a small layout would break the bank.

 

But it all depends on what information you want to know, tell us what you're looking for and we might be able to help.

OK, two points to start (from here I'll probably go to the S4 forum):

1. I read about P4 being more exacting due to track levelling. This seems to be due to different wheelsets. Is it possible just to keep the old wheels and replace the axles?

2. Can I use the standard close couplings from Roco and Kadee, or am I submitting myself to making AJ? Ideally, I'd want to retain the NEM sockets on my RTR rolling stock. I think I'll by OK spacing out wheelsets, I'd even give quartering a go, but I'd think twice about butchering all my rolling stock.

 

I'm not too bothered about wider radii and longer turnouts as I was planning for them anyway (a fully kitted Schools class needs ca. 1800mm radius).

[fender]

I am also a beginner in these so-called 'elitist' gauges and I have to say I would much prefer to have a dedicated sub forum to browse through.

 

anyone who views EM/P4 as elitist surely gets their feathers ruffled just as much by seeing 'P4' and 'EM' tags and subject lines all over the place as they would by seeing a separate area for these gauges. if they were all in one place then at least it would be easier for them to ignore it.

 

personally, I think the idea of a gauge or anything else in model railways being elitist is ridiculous. lording it over others in any field, but especially a hobby, is pretty silly. I would be inclined to just roll my eyes and move on when I come across that attitude, but I have to say that I found the hostility from some members towards EM/P4 was much more of a deterrent for me than the thought of building track or re-wheeling stock. having a separate sub-forum would presumably help reduce chance of the argumentative coming together, as well as making browsing easier.

[Miss Prism]

1. I read about P4 being more exacting due to track levelling. This seems to be due to different wheelsets. Is it possible just to keep the old wheels and replace the axles?

In EM, usually yes, in P4 no. Flanges for EM use are generally tolerant of vertical track defects, P4 flanges far less so. That is why P4 types prefer forms of non-rigid chassis suspension, although that is not always a prerequisite (depends on the loco or vehicle type).

 

2. Can I use the standard close couplings from Roco and Kadee, or am I submitting myself to making AJ? Ideally, I'd want to retain the NEM sockets on my RTR rolling stock. I think I'll by OK spacing out wheelsets, I'd even give quartering a go, but I'd think twice about butchering all my rolling stock.

You can use whatever couplings you like.

[fender]

truffy,

 

here's a link I found helpful in learning about what may or may not be possible with P4:

 

http://www.freewebs.com/p4madeeasy/p4myths.htm

[Nimbus]

OK, two points to start (from here I'll probably go to the S4 forum):

1. I read about P4 being more exacting due to track levelling. This seems to be due to different wheelsets. Is it possible just to keep the old wheels and replace the axles?

I'll be brief, since we're going a bit OT.

 

Re-gauging 00 wheels isn't P4. This is because, as Railtrack found to its cost, the track and the wheelsets that run on it have to be treated as an intimately connected system. Therefore the crossing flangeways are critically related to the form of the wheel flange. If you used 00 wheels without modification, you'd have to design your own track and flangeway dimensions and tolerances. To maintain these, and to set your wheels, you'd then have to make, or commission some one to make, a custom set of gauges. After all that effort, your stock would neither run on anyone else's P4 layout, or a 00 layout! You'd still have to swap wheelsets to conform to a single set of dimensions, as RTR manufacturers do not feel the need to conform. Oh, and 00 wheel tyres are wider, so you would have clearance problems between bogie sideframes, or between outside cylinders and valvegear. Better all round to do what others have already succeeded with!

 

2. Can I use the standard close couplings from Roco and Kadee, or am I submitting myself to making AJ? Ideally, I'd want to retain the NEM sockets on my RTR rolling stock. I think I'll by OK spacing out wheelsets, I'd even give quartering a go, but I'd think twice about butchering all my rolling stock.

P4 does not mandate any particular coupling system. Naturally, workers in P4 tend to want something which looks and/or operates prototypically. In coach rakes, home-made equivalents of the commercial close-couplers are not uncommon, especially if the coaches are run i fixed rakes.

 

I'm not too bothered about wider radii and longer turnouts as I was planning for them anyway (a fully kitted Schools class needs ca. 1800mm radius).

How lucky are you? Sounds like you're not constrained to having a shunting plank like lots of us are! 

 

HTH,

The Nim.

[Velopeur]

1. I read about P4 being more exacting due to track levelling. This seems to be due to different wheelsets. Is it possible just to keep the old wheels and replace the axles?

 

 

The wheel flanges are much finer on P4 stock (much closer in scale to the real thing) so you could not use OO wheels through P4 pointwork. The flange gaps on the pointwork would be too tight.

 

See http://www.clag.org.uk/p4standards.html

[beast66606]

As Miss P* says EM is more tolerant of track defects than P4, having built two P4 layouts, both big and both running with express speed trains I speak from some experience, despite others who don't have such experience trying to mock me - but that brings in my other point, elitism is nothing to do with OO/EM/P4/S4/etc. it's the attitude of the person themselves, so don't worry about that, there are plenty of friendly helpful souls in the P4 arena just as there are plenty of the "our" variety in the OO/EM.

 

As has been mentioned a lot of modelling is track gauge / wheel irrelevant - your buildings will be 4mm, your scenery will be 4mm etc.

 

btw - S4 is like P4 but with finer clearances on flangeways.

 

 

Edit - *and others !

[martin_wynne]

1. I read about P4 being more exacting due to track levelling. This seems to be due to different wheelsets. Is it possible just to keep the old wheels and replace the axles?

 

No. P4 track requires P4 wheels only.*

 

 

 

2. Can I use the standard close couplings from Roco and Kadee,

 

Yes.

 

Martin.

 

*Disregard the discussion which you may find on the Scalefour Forum about using EM wheels (RP25/88 profile) for P4 -- they won't work.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Truffy,

 

Do you prefer building models or running trains?

 

The general advice is that P4 is best for individual models, EM for a large working layout built single-handed. But the key question to ask yourself is not about track or wheels but about baseboards. What are your carpentry skills? Can you build a baseboard which is dead flat and will remain so for years?

 

If yes, go ahead and build P4. There is rather more work than for EM but it's not difficult if you have the time and space. Trackwork is just as easy to build for either, but P4 does require easier minimum radii and hence more space.

 

If no, stick to EM or 00. The wheels for P4 have tiny flanges which will find every imperfection in your track levels. Failure and disillusion with P4 can nearly always be traced to wonky baseboards.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Kenton]

 

personally, I think the idea of a gauge or anything else in model railways being elitist is ridiculous. lording it over others in any field, but especially a hobby, is pretty silly.

Oh well said and very true. However it happens and what many (more like newer members) fail to realise is that trying to hide behind a sub forum simply doesn't work for the reasons given above and that simple process of trying to appear to be different simply emphasises the them and us that is the root cause of all the grief. So a sub forum simply doesn't hide things it simply is a source of antagonism.

 

EM/P4 and S4 are simply modellers who wish to take simple OO gauge to a more refined and prototypically correct level. Nothing at all wrong with that and indeed it is to be applauded by everyone on the one condition that it is seen as an improvement that is not the answer for everyone and that great things are achievable in 4mm and OO.

 

It has been said many times on here that there is nothing worse than a layout that simply goes P4 in terms of track finesse yet fails to bring the rest of the 4mm layout along with it. I sure many in OO would admit to some envy at the skills to build that special P4 layout (I don't mind admitting it) and I see that as a good thing, and I dabbled in EM back in the 70's.

[martin_wynne]

EM/P4 and S4 are simply modellers who wish to take simple 00 gauge to a more refined and prototypically correct level.

 

Proper 00 gauge is prototypically correct for 4ft-1.5in gauge track. The fact that that there is very little such track about doesn't change that fact.

 

It is running 00 gauge models on H0 track which is daft.

 

Martin.

[Ravenser]

Actually, if it came down to that I'd probably run a mile! But it seems that P4 and EM track can be purchased ready-made, and not so expensive that a small layout would break the bank.

 

 

OK, two points to start (from here I'll probably go to the S4 forum):

1. I read about P4 being more exacting due to track levelling. This seems to be due to different wheelsets. Is it possible just to keep the old wheels and replace the axles?

2. Can I use the standard close couplings from Roco and Kadee, or am I submitting myself to making AJ? Ideally, I'd want to retain the NEM sockets on my RTR rolling stock. I think I'll by OK spacing out wheelsets, I'd even give quartering a go, but I'd think twice about butchering all my rolling stock.

 

I'm not too bothered about wider radii and longer turnouts as I was planning for them anyway (a fully kitted Schools class needs ca. 1800mm radius).

 

If you model in P4 or EM , you will require all your points to be handbuilt (and that includes the fiddle yard, which on a continuous run layout might account for 2/3rds of the pointwork) . And the handbuilt points must be consistantly reliable. It's certainly possible to learn to do this - enough folk have managed it to show that building points is a craft skill a lot of folk can learn. But it will be time and work.

 

The only alternative is getting someone else to built the points for you. And that costs money - perhaps pretty substantial money. To put numbers on this, my little layout has 8 points, one of them a bespoke short single slip and another two forming a bespoke crossover. That little lot cost £225 from Marcway in 2007 (Mine were OO, as there was a deadline and I wasn't going to try learning pointbuilding by starting with a single slip,  but EM prices ought to be the same) . If you want nice chaired track , not basic soldered copperclad , it will cost substantially more because it's much more laborious work - threading 50 chairs on a length of rail in an evening convinced me this was not a way I wanted to go   

 

In OO you have the get-out clause /escape hatch that anything off scene can be done with commercial pointwork unless you are confident you have the time and skill to do the lot. The success of the project doesn't depend on your ability to build points that work. 

 

You haven't got a prayer if you try pushing out RTR OO wheels to 18.83mm gauge. The fatter flanges will jam in the flangeway gaps between wing/check rail and the running rail. To be honest I'm not personally 100% convinced about pushing out OO RTR wheels to EM because the flanges are that bit thicker, and you are reducing the clearances in the wheel/rail system below designed levels - I can't help feeling reliability must suffer. Similar considerations would apply to attempts to use EM wheels on P4 . There will also be clearance issues on big steam locos. Somewhere in the back of my mind is a quote I once saw from an ancient scale/gauge debate , where someone said that they had seen a prewar HO finescale Schools which wouldn't go round a 6' curve. This is close to the value you mention, and I think this may be one prototype where rewheeling for EM may be a smart idea. I'm not a Southern modeller, but Maunsell was trying to build the most powerful possible engine for a restricted route, and I suspect he may have been pushing fullsize  clearances on the real thing to the limit to get the necessary power  . This sort of thing keeps a lot of us firmly in OO

 

Because the flanges on P4 wheels are so shallow - close to scale values - they are very vulnerable to derailment , hence the percieved need for compensation or some form of springing on all stock to keep the wheels on the track . EM and even more so OO deal with the problem by having deeper than scale flanges - so the irregularity has to be much greater before the wheel rides over the rail. While compensation isn't a huge issue on wagons, it's going to be much more demanding on locos and carriages. Conventional wisdom is that some form of compensation is essential on P4 steam locos , but not on EM ones

 

The choice of track gauge makes no difference whatsover to couplings - except in the sense that AJ's won't work with commercial OO. You can happily use Kadees, Roco, Spratt+Winkle, or (if you insist) tensionlocks with the finer gauges

 

I'm deeply doubtful about a seperate forum section for several reasons. Firstly, a great many of the special interest sections are sparsely supported as it is, and so relatively few folk look at them . Secondly some of us like to read varied material - and as a OO modeller I would very much regret having all EM /P4 material , much of which isn't really gauge specific, hidden away somewhere else - the idea that OO modellers don't want to read material about etched kit builds (say) is something I'd strongly  resist 

 

Martin Wynne

His suggestion for a separate forum was for somewhere to keep the "done to death" links. Not for somewhere to re-run the arguments.

 

 

 

And I'm afraid that's exactly what it would become - the Flamepit  "Gauge wars and MRJ threads a speciality" 

 

Scale is a very much more important seperation of interest than gauge in practice

[Ravenser]

Proper 00 gauge is prototypically correct for 4ft-1.5in gauge track. The fact that that there is very little such track about doesn't change that fact.

 

It is running 00 gauge models on H0 track which is daft.

 

Martin.

 

 

4' gauge tramways - of which there were a modest number?

[davknigh]

Actually, if it came down to that I'd probably run a mile! But it seems that P4 and EM track can be purchased ready-made, and not so expensive that a small layout would break the bank.

 

 

OK, two points to start (from here I'll probably go to the S4 forum):

1. I read about P4 being more exacting due to track levelling. This seems to be due to different wheelsets. Is it possible just to keep the old wheels and replace the axles?

2. Can I use the standard close couplings from Roco and Kadee, or am I submitting myself to making AJ? Ideally, I'd want to retain the NEM sockets on my RTR rolling stock. I think I'll by OK spacing out wheelsets, I'd even give quartering a go, but I'd think twice about butchering all my rolling stock.

 

I'm not too bothered about wider radii and longer turnouts as I was planning for them anyway (a fully kitted Schools class needs ca. 1800mm radius).

Hi Truffy,

I've been modelling in P4 for some years now having come to it from North American HO. Much has been made of the need for suspension and those scary tiny flanges but with a bit of care you can get by very nicely with just dropping in the P4 wheelsets on most short wheelbase rolling stock. It will be necessary to trim some of the extra plastic off the back of Bachmann wagons and brakes sometimes have to be repositioned but if you're doing kits everything pretty much falls into place. The only caveat is that there should be a bit of endplay in the axles and the wagons need to weigh at least 30g. There was an article on converting a Bachmann "Jinty" in MRJ 225 with drop in wheelsets and Allan Gibson does conversion sets for a wide range of RTR locos. Bo-Bo diesels can be converted with drop in wheelsets as well, Co-Co are a bit more of a challenge but etched conversion kits are available for them too.

 

So why the big fuss about suspension? Simply put it raises the quality of the experience. The ride is a bit smoother, the track holding is more reliable and the appearance of the metal W-irons is that much finer but it is not essential. My stock is a mix of kit and RTR with some wagons suspended and some just dropped in place, all are about equally reliable. The same goes for my locos some rigid, some compensated and some sprung and they all work. As Martin said earlier it comes down to the track and with the kits available on the market now, track is no longer the intimidating thing it used to be.

 

My advice? Have a go, build yourself a short test track with a turnout, convert a couple of wagons and an engine and give it a try.

 

As mentioned before couplings are a personal choice, 3 link/screw link, Kadee, Dingham, S&W or whatever although I suspect you may find hook and bar look a tad out of place with your new wheels and track.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[fender]

......

It has been said many times on here that there is nothing worse than a layout that simply goes P4 in terms of track finesse yet fails to bring the rest of the 4mm layout along with it.

......

 

I've seen that said before as well but to be honest I don't really understand it. why does P4 automatically mean that everything about the layout must be perfect or is a disappointment?

 

some people run RTR stock on set track but are passionate about prototypical weathering, or make fantastic scratch-built buildings, or run a perfectly prototypical operation. we all have our interests. if someone's interest is in weathering then I don't often hear people criticizing their stock choice or RTP buildings. someone who builds fantastic loco kits but doesn't know anything about signalling doesn't usually draw ire for that, and yet somehow hand-built track is held up as being a base-line for brilliant expectations.

 

someone who models in P4 might well just have a strong interest in track but has no particular concern over what runs on it. why would that be any more of a problem than any other of the many choices of focus in our hobby?

[Kenton]

 

It is running 00 gauge models on H0 track which is daft.

 

Martin.

Martin !! please !! - not "daft" .... and you wonder why with such remarks that those vast number of railway modellers (way outnumbering EM and P4 put together) get upset and feel there is some form of elitism.

 

The reason we all know is historical, but until the big manufacturers produce RTR track and the stock to run on it - it is the way it is 4mm models on OO gauge track. There are no doubt many OO modellers who would thing what is daft is building your own track. I still rather see it as a small step along the road to making everything more prototypical.

[Ravenser]

I've seen that said before as well but to be honest I don't really understand it. why does P4 automatically mean that everything about the layout must be perfect or is a disappointment?

 

some people run RTR stock on set track but are passionate about prototypical weathering, or make fantastic scratch-built buildings, or run a perfectly prototypical operation. we all have our interests. if someone's interest is in weathering then I don't often hear people criticizing their stock choice or RTP buildings. someone who builds fantastic loco kits but doesn't know anything about signalling doesn't usually draw ire for that, and yet somehow hand-built track is held up as being a base-line for brilliant expectations.

 

someone who models in P4 might well just have a strong interest in track but has no particular concern over what runs on it. why would that be any more of a problem than any other of the many choices of focus in our hobby?

 

 

It has often been stressed by finescale modellers that "the finescale ethos" covers everything, not just the track

 

There seems little point in going to all the trouble of building track to the nth degree (or more precisely to a claimed accuracy of 0.01mm) and complex suspensions to run on it - and then  decorating the stock with tension locks in their crudest form and plonking Superquick kits next to the track. A reasonable consistancy overall helps the effect

 

 

 

I once saw an S gauge model where the signal box had been cobbled together out of a Superquick signal box kit. Frankly I could have scratchbuilt something better and much more authentic , and I did wonder what was the point of all the work of adopting a non-commercial scale if you were going to bodge parts of it that badly. By definition, if you can work in S at all you are capable of better than that  

 

This kind of feeling is particularly strong if you work in OO and are continually reminded that in certain quarters everything you do is automatically second or third rate, a little regrettable and something such folk feel the hobby should rise above. If you then see one of these examples of superior modelling and find yourself muttering "I wouldn't tolerate that on my layout" ....

 

(At this point I must play devils' advocate and point out that 18.83mm gauge is wrong for 1970s-90s BR. The prototype track gauge was reduced to 1432mm , so you should be modelling to 18.79mm gauge instead. ... If you think this is splitting hairs, you shouldn't be defining your gauge to a claimed accuracy of 0.01mm, or 10 microns)

[truffy]

Oh, and 00 wheel tyres are wider, so you would have clearance problems between bogie sideframes, or between outside cylinders and valvegear. Better all round to do what others have already succeeded with!

That bit I understand!

P4 does not mandate any particular coupling system. Naturally, workers in P4 tend to want something which looks and/or operates prototypically. In coach rakes, home-made equivalents of the commercial close-couplers are not uncommon, especially if the coaches are run i fixed rakes.

My concern was more to the effect that if P4 is so sensitive to level track etc. it might take umbrage to the tensions of close-coupling, particularly around curves. If this isn't the case, so much the better. 

How lucky are you? Sounds like you're not constrained to having a shunting plank like lots of us are!

Ha ha, I wish. What I meant was that I've pretty much settled on a partial straight rather than a loop, because I wouldn't have the room anyway. At least not without buying a barn to put it in. So, since the locos pretty much nix the idea of a loop, any constraints of P4 in this regard are somewhat moot. 

Hi Truffy,

 

Do you prefer building models or running trains?

 

The general advice is that P4 is best for individual models, EM for a large working layout built single-handed. But the key question to ask yourself is not about track or wheels but about baseboards. What are your carpentry skills? Can you build a baseboard which is dead flat and will remain so for years?

 

If yes, go ahead and build P4. There is rather more work than for EM but it's not difficult if you have the time and space. Trackwork is just as easy to build for either, but P4 does require easier minimum radii and hence more space.

 

If no, stick to EM or 00. The wheels for P4 have tiny flanges which will find every imperfection in your track levels. Failure and disillusion with P4 can nearly always be traced to wonky baseboards.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Thank you, Martin. My carpentry skills are above rudimentary. You make a good case there for EM...I prefer realism, but that realism also extends to my time and ability. Space is not the issue, since as I noted above I'm already thinking of something more constrained than a big loop. But there's plenyu of good advice here to get me going.

 

In the first instance, I might get so EM and P4 track and mess about with a small diorama.

[truffy]

My advice? Have a go, build yourself a short test track with a turnout, convert a couple of wagons and an engine and give it a try.

Thank you, David, that's good advice. I have a Bachmann pannier and some wagons that would make a reasonable toe in the water.

As mentioned before couplings are a personal choice, 3 link/screw link, Kadee, Dingham, S&W or whatever although I suspect you may find hook and bar look a tad out of place with your new wheels and track.

Oh, the hook and bar are definitely going, irrespective of anything else!

[fender]

It has often been stressed by finescale modellers that "the finescale ethos" covers everything, not just the track

 

There seems little point in going to all the trouble of building track to the nth degree (or more precisely to a claimed accuracy of 0.01mm) and complex suspensions to run on it - and then  decorating the stock with tension locks in their crudest form and plonking Superquick kits next to the track. A reasonable consistancy overall helps the effect

 

 

 

I once saw an S gauge model where the signal box had been cobbled together out of a Superquick signal box kit. Frankly I could have scratchbuilt something better and much more authentic , and I did wonder what was the point of all the work of adopting a non-commercial scale if you were going to bodge parts of it that badly. By definition, if you can work in S at all you are capable of better than that  

 

This kind of feeling is particularly strong if you work in OO and are continually reminded that in certain quarters everything you do is automatically second or third rate, a little regrettable and something such folk feel the hobby should rise above. If you then see one of these examples of superior modelling and find yourself muttering "I wouldn't tolerate that on my layout" ....

 

(At this point I must play devils' advocate and point out that 18.83mm gauge is wrong for 1970s-90s BR. The prototype track gauge was reduced to 1432mm , so you should be modelling to 18.79mm gauge instead. ... If you think this is splitting hairs, you shouldn't be defining your gauge to a claimed accuracy of 0.01mm, or 10 microns)

 

but you could equally ask what the point is of scratch-building a station and then running OO track through it. or what the point is of prototypical operation and functioning signals with tension-lock couplings, or having handbuilt locos and stock which is not prototypically weathered.

 

if 'finescale' modellers define 'finescale' as an ethos which covers everything then great! good for them, and hopefully I'll be able to achieve something leaning in that direction. although I am starting out in P4 I would never describe myself as modelling in 'finescale' for that very reason. but just because someone likes looking at track and trying to emulate it as best they can it does not follow that they have to do the same with all the rest of the layout. whether it "seems there is little point" in building track is completely your opinion. to someone who mainly wants fab-looking track there might be quite a lot of point!

 

I just think it is hugely unfortunate that there is such expectation attached to P4. certainly, the desire to achieve realism in any aspect of railway modelling should hopefully rub off on all the others, including inspiring people to improve their track. but if people don't want to spend weeks/months regauging their stock and building track I don't begrudge them that, any more than I would begrudge a keen track-fanatic just printing buildings instead of spending weeks/months scratchbuilding them.

[beast66606]

Thank you, Martin. My carpentry skills are above rudimentary. You make a good case there for EM...I prefer realism, but that realism also extends to my time and ability. Space is not the issue, since as I noted above I'm already thinking of something more constrained than a big loop. But there's plenyu of good advice here to get me going.

 

 

Mostyn was built by a professional - with labouring assistance of keen amateurs - but the Charlotte Road boards were not quite so good, but we still managed to get express speed P4 diesels and stock running over them and it's now in a new home and still working fine - apparently running steam things.

Don't be too put off by the baseboards, if they are fixed then sanding them flat once in position will reap big rewards, if they are portable then make the joints good - very good and adjustable this caters for venues with dubious floors, and make the feet / legs adjustable too.

 

PS - we once converted one of the Bachmann "Thomas" type range to run on the layout - it was the most requested train we had.

[BG John]

I went from Triang Super 4, with some bits of Series 3 mixed in, to EM when I was 16. When I look at pictures of 00 layouts (or the real thing), of whatever quality, the thing that often spoils it for me is the oversize track. It just sticks out like a sore thumb, whether the layout is an all RTR with off the shelf buildings train set, or the finest quality hand made stock and scenery. Oversize rail and undersize sleeper spacing ruins the illusion, far more than the gauge being too narrow. My exhibition layouts were built using the standards common in the 1970s and 80s, with far less details than you find on modern models, and probably to a lower standard overall than a lot of current 00 modellers who think that EM/P4 is way above their ability. But the track looked right, despite lacking much of the detail that goes into it now, whereas Peco Code 100 would have degraded the whole layout. My EM layout built with half inch chipboard on 2x1 timber frame, wasn't exactly flat after a while, but it still ran well!

 

So I'd still go for EM, or even P4 if I could build the track and baseboards well enough, even if the standard of the rest of the layout wasn't that high. The scenery can be improved over time, and done better on future layouts, and the overall effect will be better than with standard 00 track, and you won't reach a standard of modelling where the track ruins the overall effect.