Manchester Model Railway Society EM Standards

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Perhaps it's my old eyes, Tony, but in the first photo I genuinely cannot see any gaps between the vees of the two points in the middle.

 

You are quite right that there is no joint in the normal place! Perhaps that was what the earlier query was referring to and I misunderstood. Due to the type of construction, using individual chairs glued to sleepers, I like to have rails supported in more than a few chairs, so the crossing nose vee rails are extended. They go beyond the check rails and the gaps are about half way along the stock rail of the opposite point, where there was a rail joint on the real thing. A dummy joint with fishplates and the top of the rail notched will improve the appearance later in the build. I have attached another photo which illustrates what I mean. It was only when construction was quite advanced that I realised there was no easy place to put a joint without having either a very short vee or having a fishplate half way along a check rail. So the gaps are there, just not in the traditional place and off the edge of the first photo.

 

[Lacathedrale]

I had the pleasure of seeing this throat in the flesh at ExpoEM and honestly I'm quite thoroughly convinced! I'm going to soldier on with attempting a P4 compensated chassis, rather than immediately downing tools and starting over; but it feels like a bit of a no-brainer.

 

Drawing up a Manchester EM and a P4 turnout in Templot there's almost nothing in it at all:

 

 

Lovely stuff.

[martin_wynne]

3 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

Drawing up a Manchester EM and a P4 turnout in Templot there's almost nothing in it at all:

 

Hi William,

 

Track difference:

 

gauge difference: 0.83mm

flangeway difference: 0.13mm

 

Wheel difference:

 

P4 wheels on P4: back-to-back: 17.75mm max.

P4 wheels on EM-SF: back-to-back: 16.8mm max. (P4 wheels won't run on regular EM without bumping in the crossings)

EM kit wheels on EM-SF: back-to-back: 16.6mm max. (same as regular EM)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Lacathedrale]

Right, Martin - I didn't mean there was literally nothing in it - I meant that looking at those two plans it's hard to tell visually :)

[t-b-g]

After a most enjoyable weekend at EXPO EM, meeting up with several folk from RMWeb, I am having to revise my ideas on Manchester EM. One RMWebber had actually operated "Presson" (the best known layout from the Manchester EM group) after it had changed hands and been renamed and it had run with "normal EM" stock. This was back in the day of old style Romfords and such. He was sure that the flangeways were 1mm, not 0.8mm. He reckoned that they got away with it because the only curves on the layout were through large radius points, so the binding between the rails was not a problem, which sounds very feasible. Having checked the figures, the 1mm flangeway would just work. The "opposite" flange on a check rail would "kiss" the crossing nose but not hit it.

 

So my guess on the standards used turned out to be wrong but the success of the 18mm gauge with 0.8mm flangeways means that I am going to stick with it.

 

So from now on, I will call my track EM-SF to match the title used by Martin Wynne in Templot.

[martin_wynne]

48 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Having checked the figures, the 1mm flangeway would just work. The "opposite" flange on a check rail would "kiss" the crossing nose but not hit it.

 

I don't see that? With 1.0mm flangeway on 18.0mm gauge, the check gauge is 17.0mm. Romford wheels with 0.7mm thick flanges at 16.5mm back-to-back have a back-to-flange of 17.2mm. This is exceeding the check gauge by 0.2mm and they will strike the crossing nose. This was the very reason the EMGS changed to 18.2mm track gauge in the 1960s. The original BRMSB EM standard (EM-18 in Templot, 18.0mm with 1.0mm flangeway, 16.5mm back-to-back) required wheels having 0.5mm thick flanges, and none such were available. Even modern kit wheels with 0.6mm flanges will strike the nose by 0.1mm at 16.5mm back-to-back.

 

I suggest using the EM-SF 0.8mm flangeway for the reason it matches the current EMGS check gauge of 17.2mm. That means wheels will work equally well on EM-SF and regular EM at the same back-to-backs. If you want 1.0mm flangeways stick to regular 18.2mm EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

38 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

I don't see that? With 1.0mm flangeway on 18.0mm gauge, the check gauge is 17.0mm. Romford wheels with 0.7mm thick flanges at 16.5mm back-to-back have a back-to-flange of 17.2mm. This is exceeding the check gauge by 0.2mm and they will strike the crossing nose. This was the very reason the EMGS changed to 18.2mm track gauge in the 1960s. The original BRMSB EM standard (EM-18 in Templot, 18.0mm with 1.0mm flangeway, 16.5mm back-to-back) required wheels having 0.5mm thick flanges, and none such were available. Even modern kit wheels with 0.6mm flanges will strike the nose by 0.1mm at 16.5mm back-to-back.

 

I suggest using the EM-SF 0.8mm flangeway for the reason it matches the current EMGS check gauge of 17.2mm. That means wheels will work equally well on EM-SF and regular EM at the same back-to-backs. If you want 1.0mm flangeways stick to regular 18.2mm EM.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

You are quite right!

 

I didn't word that last post very well. I meant that the Manchester wheels with a 0.5mm flange would be OK with a 1mm flangeway gap. I think the Romford wheels working on the 18mm track with a 1mm flangeway probably worked because the points were large radius and well aligned so the wheels didn't hit the crossing nose. I have built hundreds of 18.2mm gauge points and I can get things to run through with no check rails if the crossing nose alignment is spot on. In fact that is my test to see if they are well made. 

[hayfield]

I am reading this thread with interest, but I am getting a bit confused, please confirm if I am understanding the topic correctly

 

The wheel BtB is the standard 16.5

 

Standard Gibson EM wheelsets are OK

 

Romford wheels flanges are too wide

 

What about P4 wheelsets ? are the flanges too small and does the BtB need opening up a tad ?

 

Thanks

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

I am reading this thread with interest, but I am getting a bit confused, please confirm if I am understanding the topic correctly

 

The wheel BtB is the standard 16.5

 

Standard Gibson EM wheelsets are OK

 

Romford wheels flanges are too wide

 

What about P4 wheelsets ? are the flanges too small and does the BtB need opening up a tad ?

 

Thanks

 

Hi John,

 

Ignore the historical stuff about what did or didn't happen in Manchester half a century ago. 🙂

 

For EM-SF now:

 

The track gauge is 18.0mm (narrower than regular EM 18.2mm).

 

The crossing flangeway is 0.8mm (narrower than regular EM 1.0mm) -  use Exactoscale 0.8mm check rail chairs.

 

The check gauge is 17.2mm. The same as regular EM. Use existing EMGS check rail gauges.

 

The wheels back-to-back must not be less than 16.5mm minimum. Existing EMGS 16.5mm back-to-back gauges must fit easily.

 

You can use Gibson-type EM kit wheels (preferred) or P4 wheels.

 

Romford/Markits wheels are marginal, and will work on EM-SF only on straights and gentle curves and nice long turnouts. Until someone writes in and says otherwise.

 

With Gibson-type kit wheels set the back-to-back to 16.6mm max. This is the same as for those wheels on regular EM. Gibson-type wheels which run on EM-SF will also run on regular EM.

 

With P4 wheels set the back-to-back to 16.8mm max for EM-SF. This is not the same as regular P4. P4 loco wheels should run fine. Original P4 wagon and coach wheels (1.7mm wide) might be a little bumpy, as they are marginal for full support through the crossings. All P4 wheels will be very bumpy if tried on regular EM.

 

RTR-type wheels won't run on EM-SF.

______________________________________________________________

 

Only a handful of modellers have currently tried EM-SF. It can't yet be called an established standard with much accumulated experience. For example what about 3-point gauges for gauge-widening? How much is needed? Are Ultrascale EM wheels equivalent to Gibson on EM-SF?

 

As a rough guide to setting Gibson wheels for both EM-SF and regular EM -- an EMGS 16.5mm back-to-back gauge should fit very easily between the wheels. Combined with a piece of ordinary office copier paper, it should be a tight fit.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited May 18, 2022 by martin_wynne
typos

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

I am reading this thread with interest, but I am getting a bit confused, please confirm if I am understanding the topic correctly

 

The wheel BtB is the standard 16.5

 

Standard Gibson EM wheelsets are OK

 

Romford wheels flanges are too wide

 

What about P4 wheelsets ? are the flanges too small and does the BtB need opening up a tad ?

 

Thanks

 

A lot depends on whether you are talking about the old Manchester EM track standards or the EM-SF ones that I thought they used. One or two people earlier in the thread (4 years ago!) suggested that they used a 1mm flangeway but at the time I thought it unlikely. Now I have pretty much had it confirmed.

 

The B2B on all the stock from Sid Stubbs is exactly (within my measuring ability!) 16.5mm. Using modern EM wheels set at 16.5mm B2B (Gibson/Ultrascale/Modern Markits plus older ones like Sharmans) works just fine. Older Romfords may just go through as they have a 0.7mm flange going through a 0.8mm check rail gap but you would need a spot on accurate gauge, check rail setting and back to back to make it work and they will catch on the plastic chairs I use, so I won't be trying them or RTR wheels opened up to EM. This is all on EM-SF.

 

I haven't experimented with 18mm gauge/1mm flangeway track and won't be doing so as I am very happy with the EM-SF and would prefer to get on with modelling rather than experimenting with wheel/track combinations.

 

I haven't tried P4 wheels but the sums say they should work if set at 16.5mm B2B. The Manchester wheels are "almost" P4 profile, with only the flange being very slightly deeper. I may possibly experiment with some P4 wheels (which will take about 30 seconds) just to see if they do work but I won't be adopting them myself. If I was going to do that, I would go all the way and model in P4. 

 

This is really an attempt to make better looking EM and to give me something to run existing stock on, both from Sid Stubbs and from my own collection. I won't say it is to improve the running of EM as I have never needed to do that since I started modelling EM in 1979. I have always been very happy with the way my "conventional" EM layouts have run. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by t-b-g

[martin_wynne]

42 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

The B2B on all the stock from Sid Stubbs is exactly (within my measuring ability!) 16.5mm.

 

I suspect those are Sid's home-turned wheels with 0.5mm flanges? Any thicker is going to hit the crossings, using 1.0mm flangeways.

 

 

44 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Using modern EM wheels set at 16.5mm B2B (Gibson/Ultrascale/Modern Markits plus older ones like Sharmans) works just fine.

 

I suggest they would run better at 16.6mm back-to-back on both EM-SF and regular EM. Ideally wheels should just kiss the check rail when the opposite wheel is running against the rail head. This means using the appropriate back-to-back for the type of wheel, and not using the same back-to-back for everything. At 16.5mm back-to-back those wheels are going to lurch 0.1mm sideways as they hit the check rail, if running against the opposite rail head (as they often do on the diverging road of a turnout).

 

16.5mm is fine for Romford/Markits.

 

Unfortunately the idea of religiously using the same back-to-back for everything has been so ingrained in modellers for generations, that my head hurts from banging it against a brick wall. 😀

 

I think it would be helpful to have a separate topic clearly titled EM-SF and not mix it up with historical memories. Folks are easily confused and often give up in despair reading these track-standards topics.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Galagars]

I posted some details of my experience of operating “Presson” on the expoEM Spring 2022 thread. This was at an exhibition organised by the Leicester Model Railway Group in about 1970 after the layout had passed to a new owner.

Apart from a set of PC Models LNWR coaches which would have had finer profile wheels, the locos and stock were fitted with the “OO” profile wheels generally available at the time, i.e: Romford, K’s, Jackson and possibly Hamblings. I contributed a pair of scratch built LSWR coaches and some vans fitted with Nucro or Jackson wheels. As I remember the layout performed reliably notwithstanding the varied wheel profiles.

One of the locomotives in use was a Tri-ang 3F 0-6-0 with a scratch built Midland pattern tender. It was fitted with Romford driving wheels. I have just checked some vintage Romford 21 mm driving wheels and find that the flanges are about 0.6 mm thick. “Presson” did not have sharp curves and most of the curves on the layout were the diverging roads of turnouts. I have speculated that there may have been a small amount of gauge widening in the curved roads of the turnouts. If the width of flangeway was maintained at 1 mm, the check gauge may have been increased sufficiently to allow smooth passage of the Romford flanges. Alternatively, there may have been sufficient taper on the flange faces to allow guidance.

I think that it should be emphasised that 18.0 mm gauge with 0.8 mm flangeways requires a very accurate standard of pointwork construction. With 16.5 mm back-to-back the running clearance over check rails is only 0.1 mm. The scaled down prototype clearance is about 0.2 mm!

 

Galagars

[Lacathedrale]

So hypothetically, were I to build some gauges for EM-SF I'd need in theory just the flangeway (0.8mm) and block gauges (18mm). I'd also want either a standard EM 16.5mm B2B gauge or make one of 16.6mm and in theory also a check rail gauge of 17.2mm?

 

I've got a lathe and alot of spare bits of brass, so it could be a fun way to get the machining juices flowing again.

 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, Galagars said:

I think that it should be emphasised that 18.0 mm gauge with 0.8 mm flangeways requires a very accurate standard of pointwork construction. With 16.5 mm back-to-back the running clearance over check rails is only 0.1 mm. The scaled down prototype clearance is about 0.2 mm!

 

That's why I'm suggesting 16.6mm is a better B2B setting for Gibson-type wheels.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

12 minutes ago, Lacathedrale said:

and in theory also a check rail gauge of 17.2mm?

 

17.2mm check rail gauges are available from the EMGS (or used to be, I haven't checked the current situation).

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

I suspect those are Sid's home-turned wheels with 0.5mm flanges? Any thicker is going to hit the crossings, using 1.0mm flangeways.

 

 

 

I suggest they would run better at 16.6mm back-to-back on both EM-SF and regular EM. Ideally wheels should just kiss the check rail when the opposite wheel is running against the rail head. This means using the appropriate back-to-back for the type of wheel, and not using the same back-to-back for everything. At 16.5mm back-to-back those wheels are going to lurch 0.1mm sideways as they hit the check rail, if running against the opposite rail head (as they often do on the diverging road of a turnout).

 

16.5mm is fine for Romford/Markits.

 

Unfortunately the idea of religiously using the same back-to-back for everything has been so ingrained in modellers for generations, that my head hurts from banging it against a brick wall. 😀

 

I think it would be helpful to have a separate topic clearly titled EM-SF and not mix it up with historical memories. Folks are easily confused and often give up in despair reading these track-standards topics.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

You are right Martin, they are all wheels turned by them using their own form tools, so all the profiles are identical and they can all be set at the same B2B with no problems. You have to be pretty consistent and accurate when you are working with so little tolerance for error and Sid and the others were certainly capable of being consistent and accurate.

 

I also agree that it isn't a bad thing to have different B2B measurements for different types of wheel. Having said that, I have set my Gibson/Ultrascale/Maygib and Markits wheels to 16.5mm B2B and they all go through the points with no problems at all. I don't have a 16.6mm B2B gauge and it seems a bit of a waste of effort to make one when everything works as well as I could possibly wish at 16.5mm and I am not going to start altering things now.

 

As I have said before, I always test my points with no check rails and I can't recall ever having a point that things wouldn't run through without them. So I don't get wheels "hitting" check rails and lurching over. Having the correct alignment from the wing rails onto the crossing nose seems to do away with such things.

 

This thread set out mainly to try to establish what the Manchester EM track standards were and I am happy that the question has been answered.

[hayfield]

15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

As I have said before, I always test my points with no check rails and I can't recall ever having a point that things wouldn't run through without them. So I don't get wheels "hitting" check rails and lurching over. Having the correct alignment from the wing rails onto the crossing nose seems to do away with such things.

 

This thread set out mainly to try to establish what the Manchester EM track standards were and I am happy that the question has been answered.

 

I also find if you take time in setting out exactly where the bends on the common crossing sit stock will run through the common crossing freely, its easier said than done especially when common crossings are made as subassemblies. This is not unique to and single gauge or scale. Its simply getting the alignment correct

 

Thanks for this thread as its very interesting and many of the issues raised can be used with other scales and gauges. Clearly wheel profiles and settings are equally important for good running of stock

 

 

[KeithHC]

A interesting thread just wondering where the same Manchester standards used by Peter Denny. Also can EM-SF be used with EM flex track in the same way that 00-SF is used. If so.......... Wayne just to add to your many options............

 

Keith

[t-b-g]

5 hours ago, KeithHC said:

A interesting thread just wondering where the same Manchester standards used by Peter Denny. Also can EM-SF be used with EM flex track in the same way that 00-SF is used. If so.......... Wayne just to add to your many options............

 

Keith

 

The answers to your questions are no and yes! Peter Denny went down the route of used the wheels available commercially and was probably the first to realise that Romford wheels on Romford EM axles were tight in 18mm gauge and would not go round tight curves, so he widened the gauge. This was the forerunner to EM becoming 18.2mm.

 

There wouldn't be any problem using 18.2mm plain track and 18mm points.

 

As for EM-SF being supported commercially, either by point kits or even the production of things like gauges, that is for others to decide!

Edited May 20, 2022 by t-b-g
to add "not"

[martin_wynne]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Also can EM-SF be used with EM flex track in the same way that 00-SF is used.

@Wayne Kinney

 

Hi Keith,

 

Yes, you can use 18.2mm EM flexi with EM-SF, and you would probably want to do that for any sharp curves, to get the gauge-widening.

 

You can also mix EM-SF and regular EM pointwork on the same layout -- the wheel back-to-backs are the same for both. But note that only Gibson/Ultrascale/EMGS type kit wheels will run through the EM-SF pointwork. So if you are mixing EM-SF with regular EM you are restricted to stock with such wheels. Modified RTR wheels definitely won't run, and Romford/Markits will be on the limit and need testing. If you use only EM-SF pointwork, you would also have the option of using P4 wheels.

 

I wonder what Wayne Kinney is making of this topic? If he produced his pointwork kits for EM-SF he would have a total market at present of about 3 customers. But I can imagine a rapid build-up of folks swapping to EM-SF from P4 if EM-SF pointwork was readily available. Plus regular EM users attracted by the narrower flangeways. And he would have a total monopoly -- the rest of the trade hasn't even heard of EM-SF, let alone produced anything for it. 🙂

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited May 20, 2022 by martin_wynne
typo

[Regularity]

On 20/05/2022 at 09:16, t-b-g said:

Peter Denny went down the route of used the wheels available commercially and was probably the first to realise that Romford wheels on Romford EM axles were tight in 18mm gauge and would not go round tight curves, so he widened the gauge.

IIRC, in his WSP books, Peter mentions that he had a wooden track gauge (a block placed between the rails) which he thought was 18mm wide. He experienced better running than  most modellers, and when 18.2mm was adopted for this reason, he checked his "18mm" track gauge more carefully, and found that it was actually 0.2mm wider than he thought, and that it wasn't his idea at all, just a happy coincidence.

[Lacathedrale]

@martin_wynne If I use P4 wheels am I using the same 16.5mm BTB? I have about twenty 14mm mansell wheels that I can't find anyone to swap with EM equivalents...

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

@martin_wynne If I use P4 wheels am I using the same 16.5mm BTB? I have about twenty 14mm mansell wheels that I can't find anyone to swap with EM equivalents...

 

Hi William,

 

For P4 wheels use 16.8mm back-to-back on EM-SF for best results.

 

16.5mm will work, but vehicles may lurch 0.3mm sideways as they contact the check rail.

 

I keep saying that the optimum back-to-back depends on the wheel profile, not the same for everything. But it's a battle of wits to get a message across in this hobby. 🙂

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Enterprisingwestern]

42 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

I keep saying that the optimum back-to-back depends on the wheel profile, not the same for everything. But it's a battle of wits to get a message across in this hobby.

 

There's them as listen and there's them as reckons they listen!

 

Mike.

[t-b-g]

On 20/06/2022 at 23:07, Regularity said:

IIRC, in his WSP books, Peter mentions that he had a wooden track gauge (a block placed between the rails) which he thought was 18mm wide. He experienced better running than  most modellers, and when 18.2mm was adopted for this reason, he checked his "18mm" track gauge more carefully, and found that it was actually 0.2mm wider than he thought, and that it wasn't his idea at all, just a happy coincidence.

 

I don't think that there is a single version of how Peter Denny developed his gauges. The early articles say that he planed the wood for his gauges himself, with the slotted curved one giving gauge widening from 18mm up to 18.5mm. Later he wrote that his gauge had "always" been a bit wider.

 

He told me that he had built the "Pom-Pom" as his first loco, found that was tight between the rails even on straight track because of the thick flanges and made a new gauge "a bit bigger" which worked better.

 

He said that later on he checked his and found it was "about 18.25mm". 

 

Either way, I don't think the wider gauge was the result of an accidental use of an overwide bit of wood. 

 

In truth the track on Buckingham is all over the place for gauge. The narrowest I have measured is 17.5mm and the widest 19.5mm. If he got derailments he would just tinker with the track until stuff stayed on. There is also a wide variety of wheel profiles from grotty 75 year old ones with huge flanges down to modern Gibsons and suchlike. It is astonishing that it runs at all but it does. Some vehicles derail in some places but the timetable is arranged so that they don't go to the places where they get into trouble!