Chuntybunt Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Over the winter I tried my hand at track building with a couple of copper clad turnouts in 00-SF. The results were passable and each one was an improvement on the last. I also built a couple of Parkside wagon kits. Just out of interest I re-guaged one of the wagons to EM and sat it on a shot length of track made up of C & L bases. After seeing the EM set up next to another wagon on Peco track I'm sold on building the layout in EM. I would have liked to have a go at building a couple more turnouts in EM using copper clad before I try plastic chairs and ply but given the copper clad supply situation at C & L I will probably dive straight in with ply and plastic. Looking at the C & L sight their EM track gauges have a 1mm check rail gap, witch I understand is correct for EM, but their check rail chairs have a 0-8 mm gap. Does this cause a problem when building turnouts? Should I just ignore the gauges and set the gap with the chairs? Also does anyone know the dimensions for an EM three point gauge? As they don't appear to sell these at C & L, and even if they did twenty five quid is a bit steep on a tight budget. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 Hi, The 0.8mm check chairs are not suitable for EM. EM needs a 1.0mm flangeway and 17.2mm check gauge. Cut the chairs in half or use ordinary chair outers. You could devise your own standard with 0.8mm flangeways, but it would need wider wheel back-to-backs and you should call it something other than EM, otherwise it causes massive confusion all round. Also it wouldn't be possible to use RTR wheels with 0.8mm flangeways. Track gauges for EM are available from the EM Gauge Society, less expensive to members than C&L gauges. - http://www.emgs.org Their EM Manual also contains a lot of useful info. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 I'm going to be really controversial here by asking a simple question. Does the world need EM superfine? One of the main issues argued about OO SF is the more realistic flange ways is it not. So EM (well slightly less than EM) with finer flange ways but, shall we say, a little more robust than say P4. They you go yet another compromise. Time to duck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuntybunt Posted May 25, 2015 Author Share Posted May 25, 2015 Hi Martin, That was as I thought. I can't understand why C & L don't sell chairs with a 1mm gap (other than they don't want to fork out for the tooling) if the 0.65mm chairs are for P4 what are the 0.8mm chairs for?. I know it's not a major faf to cut the chairs in half but it will surely weaken the fixing of the check rails an amount if the chairs are cut. As if it's not difficult enough already with the various 4mm standards without 0.8mm chairs being thrown in the pot. I assume that the C & L gauges are OK as they have a 1mm flangeway gap. Once you put in the £15 EMGS membership fee the gauges won't be as cost effective, I know you get other goodies as well but at the moment cash is very tight. griffgriff What's EM superfine??? I haven't even heard of that one. It is my understanding that the flange ways in 00-SF are the same as EM 1mm, but I'm probably wrong again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 I'm going to be really controversial here by asking a simple question. Does the world need EM superfine? That's already in Templot for 18.8mm gauge -- I called it EM4. • Note that this will have similar problems to H0 -- it is difficult to find space for overscale wheels under scale-width models unless the track gauge is reduced. More info and dimensions, see: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=17493 regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 That's already in Templot for 18.8mm gauge -- I called it EM4: em4.png • Note that this will have similar problems to H0 -- it is difficult to find space for overscale wheels under scale-width models unless the track gauge is reduced. More info and dimensions, see: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=17493 regards, Martin. It was a gauge reduction that I had in mind, keeping EM wheel standards but reducing the flange way. griff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 what are the 0.8mm chairs for? I assume that the C & L gauges are OK as they have a 1mm flangeway gap. Hi, The 0.8mm check chairs are used where gauge-widening is needed in P4. The C&L EM gauges are OK if you can get on with multi-slot gauges. They mean you can't have any gauge-widening through sharply-curved crossings. A proper set of track gauges has separate check rail gauges, and no gauges with more than 2 slots (as for the C&L 00-SF gauges). regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 It was a gauge reduction that I had in mind, keeping EM wheel standards but reducing the flange way. OK, I will add that to Templot. Keeping the existing back-to-backs will mean reducing the track gauge to 18.0mm, called maybe EM-SF? Note that EM was originally 18.0mm (with 1.0mm flangeways), and that is already in Templot as EM-18. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 I can't understand why C & L don't sell chairs with a 1mm gap The special chairs at C&L were acquired when they took over the Exactoscale P4 kits. Exactoscale was closely connected with the Scalefour Society and provided little support for 00 and EM. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I can see some point with messing with OO standards (but not much!), but is there really any point in messing with EM? It's been tried and tested over decades, and anyone who isn't happy with the flangeways, and is skilled enough to do anything about it, can surely cope with P4. Why complicate things? 40 odd years ago when I started in EM, I think 18.2mm gauge was fairly new, and my stock didn't run particularly well on an old 18mm gauge layout, so why introduce potential incompatibility with other people's stock? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuntybunt Posted May 25, 2015 Author Share Posted May 25, 2015 That's already in Templot for 18.8mm gauge -- I called it EM4: em4.png • Note that this will have similar problems to H0 -- it is difficult to find space for overscale wheels under scale-width models unless the track gauge is reduced. More info and dimensions, see: http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=17493 regards, Martin. Bloomin 'eck I've never even seen that panel before I was just selecting the gauge from the menu. Are the EMGS gauges similar in design to the C & L 00-SF gauges? If so it may be worth the membership fee as I do like the 00-SF gauges. Thanks for the info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 This is my EMGS gauge, bought 40 years ago, so I hope they still do the same ones or this post will be pointless and confusing!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 I can see some point with messing with OO standards (but not much!), but is there really any point in messing with EM? What folks choose to do in the privacy of their own workshop is surely up to them? The most important point is to give it a different NAME. All the confusion and difficulty is caused when folks post on forums, write articles, etc., and say something like "I'm using EM but with a different flangeway". In that case it is not EM, it is something else. A lot of the 00 confusion is caused because C&L sell gauges which they simply call 00 when in fact they are for 00 DOGA FINE only. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 Bloomin 'eck I've never even seen that panel before I was just selecting the gauge from the menu. Are the EMGS gauges similar in design to the C & L 00-SF gauges? If so it may be worth the membership fee as I do like the 00-SF gauges. gauge > other gauges... menu item. As far as I know the EMGS gauges are similar to the 00-SF gauges. They certainly used to be, but I don't know what they currently supply. It's possible they also offer the C&L gauges at a discount to members. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Chuntybunt Speaking with Peter from C&L at Railex yesterday the copperclad situation hopefully will be resolved very soon, so if you want to make the odd turnout in copperclad then you can With regard to the check rail chairs for use with both EM & 00sf gauges I use them successfully using the following process With a 5 sleeper check rail numbering CCR 1 CCL 5 and the middle three 2,3 & 4 I thread 2 CC (numbers 2 & 4) chairs on to the stock rail, thread the CCL, CC & CCR on to the check rail. Now I cut through the part of each check rail chair where the rail should be. Align the check chairs on the stock rail in positions 2 & 4 when fitting the stock rail and fit the rail with a standard EM track gauge. When set align the chairs on the check rail in positions 1, 3, & 5, glue in position using a check rail gauge. Once set glue the half chairs in position. What you will find is that by cutting through the chair visually it seems to fill the 1 mm gap The top check chair has had its chairs cut through, as have the 2 check chairs on the stock rails The top check rail you can see that I have fitted it into place The bottom check rail has the 3 chairs on but not been cut through yet, unlike the 2 check chairs on the stock rails, you cannot see them, but their half chairs have been stuck to positions 1 & 3 with 5 not having the half check chair fitted yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 This is my EMGS gauge, bought 40 years ago, so I hope they still do the same ones or this post will be pointless and confusing!!! P1000786.JPG I was thinking out loud. I don't want to confuse the issue. EM is EM but if the appearance of OO can be improved with OOSF why not EM. As Martin says, anything goes in the privacy of your own workshop - well within reason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 25, 2015 I was thinking out loud. I don't want to confuse the issue. EM is EM but if the appearance of OO can be improved with OOSF why not EM? I have now added this to Templot as EM-SF. It will be in the next program update -- in the meantime it is of course easily created as a custom gauge. Unlike for 00, running quality in EM is already good, so this isn't going to improve it. It is purely for the improved appearance of the narrower 0.8mm flangeways (and allowing use of C&L 0.8mm check chairs). The reduced track gauge means pointwork will need to be faired out to match 18.2mm flexi-track if used, as for 00-SF, although the difference is smaller. The reduced track gauge also means the check gauge remains the same at 17.2mm. So existing wheels don't need adjusting, but might need to have the back-to-backs more carefully set. The narrower flangeway means that RTR wheels cannot be used. (In standard EM they are usable, if the back-o-back is set to 16.4mm.) I have set the warning radius at 900mm / 36". Here are some suggested dimensions for EM-SF (this is not for standard EM): Track Gauge: 18.0mm MIN Check Gauge: 17.2mm MIN Crossing Flangeway: 0.8mm Check Span: 16.4mm MAX Wheel Width: 2.0mm MIN Back-to-Flange: 17.2mm MAX Back-to-Back: 16.5mm MIN RP25/88 wheels (0.6mm flange): 16.6mm MAX EMGS wheels (0.5mm flange): 16.7mm MAX RTR wheels (RP25/110) not suitable. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted May 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 26, 2015 When I woke up yesterday morning I didn't intend to cause civil war in the EM society so I do hope I haven't Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuntybunt Posted May 26, 2015 Author Share Posted May 26, 2015 Thanks all for the info. I am going to be building in EM as defined by the EMGS. As Martin says "anything goes in the privacy of your own workshop" but if you are going to build to EM with 0.8mm flangways (EM-SF or what ever you choose to call it) why not just go to P4 or S4. BG John: Is that gauge set up as an equilateral triangle? I have seen other people make these gauges with a small plate and some machine screws but I'm not sure of the dimensions other than the track gauge. Hayfield: Thanks for the clear explanation of how you set out your check rails. Your informative postings elsewhere on the forum have been an inspiration to pick up my soldering iron and start track building and I'm sure I may have a few questions when I come to start ply and plastic building. It would be good if C & L were able to restock some copper clad as I would like to try some first but in my experience "available soon" in model rail terms can mean anything from a couple of days to over a year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 26, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 26, 2015 Thanks all for the info. I am going to be building in EM as defined by the EMGS. As Martin says "anything goes in the privacy of your own workshop" but if you are going to build to EM with 0.8mm flangeways (EM-SF or what ever you choose to call it) why not just go to P4 or S4? You may have existing models with EM wheels -- P4 would require changing all of them. Also to work well P4 requires compensation or springing, whereas RTR models can be converted to EM-SF simply by changing the wheels.* Also EM-SF can be mixed with EMGS on the same layout (same check gauge). So an existing layout could be extended using EM-SF or be converted to EM-SF one turnout at a time, if RTR wheels are not being used. P4 would mean scrapping everything and starting again. *Or for EMGS by setting the existing wheels on modern RTR to 16.4mm back-to-back, but not for EM-SF. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.