Jump to content
 

Manufacturing some EM-SF Gauges


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

After seeing @t-b-g's embronic Sheffield Attercliffe at ExpoEM and the attendant discussions in the "Manchester EM" thread I'm looking to give EM-SF a try; specifically because it seems to meet my personal ask that the flangeway should be narrower than the railhead, but has less demand for perfection than P4. Not wishing to get into a gauge discussion, I think this might just reduce the inertia towards me ending up with a working layout!

 

Anyway, with a lathe and milling machine I've got the tools to whip up some gauges, so I thought I'd document it here, and sanity check my dimensions.

 

Roller Gauge - Brass round or hex as below:

image.png.55df0cfcbd1d7a13a09a712931f9c1eb.png

 

Note: The gauge is ultimately determined by the outside face of the rings. Though the railhead is depicted vertically, the 1mm gap is enough to accomodate the B/H railhead width inclined at 1:20. , the orange guide protrusions are optional (though the inner guide would be required for use as a check gauge)

 

Block Gauge - The roller gauge could be replaced with a single block gauge of 18mm width and a nominal length and thickness.

Flangeway Gauge - 0.8mm thick strip material, ideally stainless steel?

 

B2B Gauge - Cylinder 16.5mm in length, 14mm in diameter, with an 8mm segment cutout :

image.png.2c32b313242292401ea71897f023d849.png

Note: I will be sourcing some 0.1mm shim washers and/or machining a 16.6mm gauge as per @martin_wynne's suggestion in the Manchester EM thread.

 

As for wheels, my plan is to use Gibson/Ultrascale.

 

Any thoughts before I apply tool to metal?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to make a block gauge with flangeway prongs:

image.png.04574fa7e7fe3f10e62840b7391ee53d.png

 

I'm afraid my first attempt roller gauge has failed because I'm terrible at basic maths and grinding a 0.8mm grooving tool was harder than I thought!

 

EDIT: I should clarify I did a bit of hand filing so the prongs are bow-shaped: width across their length is 0.8mm but tapers down in either corner because I'm terrible at hand filing :)

Edited by Lacathedrale
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't mind doing a bit of fancy turning you can make spring loaded gauges. The "non-gauge" pieces press the rail on to the gauge. This has the advantage that you only need to turn one critical dimension for each gauge. The running rail gauge is fairly straightforward. The check gauge is a bit more complicated but not all that bad.

 

The other advantage is this accommodates variations in the rail width.

 

I can post a sketch if my word picture isn't making sense 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think I'm going to give up on the idea of using a grooving tool for the railhead recess - at least for now - the sled gauges are sufficient. I've also grabbed a piece of 0.8mm x 6mm brass strip and chemically blackened it with Casey's Brass Black (in order that it's not solder-able) that I will be able to use as a sliding flangeway gauge.

 

I'm still waiting on the 0.8mm check rail chairs from the EMGS, but in theory should be able to get started on some track laying soon.

 

I must ask, since I already have a P4 B7 sitting on my workbench, whether I can simply cut away the check rail chairs from the ties and re-gauge and glue them? I'm assuming so. The vee and wing rails are setup with functional styrene chairs, so I assume too those can be gently sliced away and re-sited? It'll probably only ever end up on a test plank but it would be nice to have something in EM-SF ready to test!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the general idea anyway.

 

1631346721_SpringGauge.jpg.69e3dae5bfab552bd64ce9560401292a.jpg

The end caps telescope inside the gauge. The "spring" isn't shown. There could be a long screw passing through the whole assembly with a compression spring and a knurled nut to adjust the pressure. The less sophisticated method is a rubber band threaded through it with a couple of bits of matchstick securing the ends.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a Joe Brook Smith track gauge (at least its principle). The rigid rods are squeezed at the top, thereby angling them slightly, to enable the railhead to assume a 1:20 inclination, whilst keeping the rails tight to gauge. I haven't got a photo. Long since unavailable unfortunately. Simple but effective. 

jbs-gauge.png.ab5cfb39c2671115cdc130c1909369de.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Summoning @martin_wynne to this thread 🪄

 

I've not found any trouble with a standard 16.5mm B2B so far, but on my loco build I may as well stack the deck in my favour - 16.5 or 16.6mm for EM-SF?

 

Many thanks!

 

Hi William,

 

I thought we covered all this in the Manchester topic? 🙂  https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/135587-manchester-model-railway-society-em-standards/

 

1. it is not meaningful to ask about back-to-back without specifying which wheel profile you mean.

 

2. max back-to-back:

 

P4 wheels on EM-SF: 16.8mm max.

EM kit wheels (Gibson, etc.) on EM-SF: 16.6mm max. (same as regular EM)

Romford/Markits wheels on EM-SF: 16.5mm max. (same as regular EM) -- but that's tricky because:

 

3. min back-to-back: all wheels on EM-SF:  16.5mm min.

 

So Romford/Markits wheels not really recommended on EM-SF.

 

For the best running, get the back-to-back close to the maximum, without exceeding it. Make one of these fixtures to help: https://85a.uk/00-sf/index.php#btb_jig  When one wheel is running hard against the rail-head, the other wheel should just kiss the check rail.

 

And do a bit of prototype fettling -- take the nose of the vee down a few thou below the level of the wing rails, and round it over to match the corner radius on the rails.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

Summoning @martin_wynne to this thread 🪄

 

I've not found any trouble with a standard 16.5mm B2B so far, but on my loco build I may as well stack the deck in my favour - 16.5 or 16.6mm for EM-SF?

 

Many thanks!

 

William, you saw the smooth running I was getting with Manchester EM wheels, plus Maygib, Gibson, Sharman and Ultrascale wheels set at 16.5mm B2B on EM-SF.

 

By my sums, if you have a flange of 0.65mm thickness, set at 16.6mm B2B, with one flange hard against the check rail, the other flange can hit a crossing nose. So if you want to go for a 16.6mm B2B your flange thickness must be 0.6mm maximum.

 

I have measured some flanges, on Ultrascales, Gibsons and Markits. The first two were as near as makes no difference 0.6mm thick and on the Markits they were 0.65mm thick. So with a 16.5mm B2B you have a margin of error of 0.1mm on the finer wheels and 0.05mm on the Markits. With a 16.6mm B2B you have a margin of error of zero on the finer wheels and Markits wheels won't work.

 

If you have a flange that is 0.61mm thick, it will not be checked properly by the opposite chack rail and could hit a crossing nose.

 

If you are happy working to those tolerances and can lay track and set wheels that accurately, then good luck to you. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 17/06/2022 at 07:38, t-b-g said:

 

William, you saw the smooth running I was getting with Manchester EM wheels, plus Maygib, Gibson, Sharman and Ultrascale wheels set at 16.5mm B2B on EM-SF.

 

By my sums, if you have a flange of 0.65mm thickness, set at 16.6mm B2B, with one flange hard against the check rail, the other flange can hit a crossing nose. So if you want to go for a 16.6mm B2B your flange thickness must be 0.6mm maximum.

 

I have measured some flanges, on Ultrascales, Gibsons and Markits. The first two were as near as makes no difference 0.6mm thick and on the Markits they were 0.65mm thick. So with a 16.5mm B2B you have a margin of error of 0.1mm on the finer wheels and 0.05mm on the Markits. With a 16.6mm B2B you have a margin of error of zero on the finer wheels and Markits wheels won't work.

 

If you have a flange that is 0.61mm thick, it will not be checked properly by the opposite chack rail and could hit a crossing nose.

 

If you are happy working to those tolerances and can lay track and set wheels that accurately, then good luck to you. 

 

 

It looks like its easier to get P4 to work compared to EM-SF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

It looks like its easier to get P4 to work compared to EM-SF.

 

I am not sure that it would be classed as easy to rebuild all my locos and stock to P4 standards, so I will stick with EM-SF.

 

My response was about having wheels of different profiles, standards and back to backs and expecting them to run through track that they were not designed for.

 

EM-SF is designed for a 16.5mm back to back and a wheel profile which is a scaled down copy of a prototype worn wheel profile. Working to those standards cannot be any easier or more difficult than working in P4 except that the wheels have a slightly deeper flange to help them stay on the track.

 

The fact that some other wheel profiles work well through the points is a bonus.

 

So EM-SF has wheels with deeper flanges that will stay on the track better than P4 and will accept other wheel profiles with no difficulty as long as they have a B2B of 16.5mm and a flange thickness of less than 0.8mm..

 

How can P4 be "easier" than that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

SDR1.jpg.af9fb0dfb93c7f73a5c1a9709d0160a6.jpgP1010009.JPG.69bc7f077abde42b017824995249d80a.JPGDSCN2356.JPG.5626ad19670b170d5740c57362d6b28e.JPG

19 minutes ago, WM183 said:

Is this EM with P4 wheels? 

 

Nearly.

 

When the Manchester gang started in the 1940s, they tried a scaled down "new" wheel profile, which is essentially P4. They found that they couldn't get the running as reliable as they wanted (and these were very highly skilled people indeed) and so they went for a "worn" wheel profile where the tyre has been turned down as much as it could be before scrapping. This creates a slightly deeper flange.

 

So it is a set of standards somewhere in between EM and P4, with EM track, a check rail set at 0.8mm, which is nearer P4 than the conventional 1mm of EM.

 

When I started experimenting I wasn't sure how well it would all work but I have found that it looks better than ordinary EM but is no more difficult.

 

I have lots of carriages and wagons with the Manchester wheels but I needed more, plus some locos, so I tried other types as I didn't fancy turning my own to their profile and it was a lovely surprise when they worked.

 

As a bonus, most modern EM wheels, if set to the EM standard 16.5mm back to back, run superbly through it. I have tried Gibson, Sharman, Ultrascale and even Markits (which needed shim washers adding to increase the B2B to 16.5mm) and they all work with no problems whatsoever. The only ones I struggled with were RTR wheels opened up to EM as some of them have a flange that is wider than the flangeway gap.

 

I have posted similar photos on other threads but not one on this one. These are some of the pointwork under construction. It will do for me!

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, WM183 said:

Is this EM with P4 wheels? 

 

No. EM-SF uses the same wheels as ordinary EM, set to the same back-to-back as ordinary EM. 

 

The only restriction is that it won't accept 00 RTR wheels widened to 16.4mm back-to-back, which do work ok on ordinary EM.

 

For EM-SF, from ordinary EM the gauge is reduced to 18.0mm, and the flangeway gap is reduced to 0.8mm. This means that the critical check gauge, the most important dimension in trackwork, remains at 17.2mm, the same as ordinary EM. This means that pointwork built to EM-SF can be mixed on the same layout as pointwork built to ordinary EM, and ordinary EM rolling stock will run on EM-SF as it stands, unmodified. 

 

But using a narrower track gauge (18.0mm in EM-SF, instead of 18.2mm in ordinary EM) means that the minimum radius is larger. That can be overcome by using gauge-widening on sharp curves, in the same way as the prototype.

 

Whether EM-SF is the same as the old "Manchester EM" (one of the precursors of P4) is a moot point. As far as I know, "Manchester EM" used a 1.0mm flangeway, in which case it is not the same as EM-SF, which uses a 0.8mm flangeway.

 

Mixing a discussion of "Manchester EM" in the same topic as EM-SF is likely to lead to confusion. It would be better if each had its own topic.

 

For EM-SF, see also this topic: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/174363-experiment-in-em-sf/?do=getNewComment

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

No. EM-SF uses the same wheels as ordinary EM, set to the same back-to-back as ordinary EM. 

 

The only restriction is that it won't accept 00 RTR wheels widened to 16.4mm back-to-back, which do work ok on ordinary EM.

 

For EM-SF, from ordinary EM the gauge is reduced to 18.0mm, and the flangeway gap is reduced to 0.8mm. This means that the critical check gauge, the most important dimension in trackwork, remains at 17.2mm, the same as ordinary EM. This means that pointwork built to EM-SF can be mixed on the same layout as pointwork built to ordinary EM, and ordinary EM rolling stock will run on EM-SF as it stands, unmodified. 

 

But using a narrower track gauge (18.0mm in EM-SF, instead of 18.2mm in ordinary EM) means that the minimum radius is larger. That can be overcome by using gauge-widening on sharp curves, in the same way as the prototype.

 

Whether EM-SF is the same as the old "Manchester EM" (one of the precursors of P4) is a moot point. As far as I know, "Manchester EM" used a 1.0mm flangeway, in which case it is not the same as EM-SF, which uses a 0.8mm flangeway.

 

Mixing a discussion of "Manchester EM" in the same topic as EM-SF is likely to lead to confusion. It would be better if each had its own topic.

 

For EM-SF, see also this topic: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/174363-experiment-in-em-sf/?do=getNewComment

 

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

To clear up the point about Manchester EM and EM-SF I am now certain they are not the same. You are right. The Manchester EM used 18mm gauge and a 1mm flangeway as you say. I was surprised when I had those dimensions confirmed as with the skills those good people had and using their own turned wheels to a very consistent and well defined standard, a smaller flangeway gap makes sense and creates a shorter gap through crossings.

 

I only found out after I started building my track but I prefer the EM-SF standards and will be sticking with them now. I have just stopped calling my track "Manchester EM".

 

So what I am doing is using Manchester EM wheels (as well as modern EM wheels) on EM-SF track.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am not sure that it would be classed as easy to rebuild all my locos and stock to P4 standards, so I will stick with EM-SF.

 

My response was about having wheels of different profiles, standards and back to backs and expecting them to run through track that they were not designed for.

 

EM-SF is designed for a 16.5mm back to back and a wheel profile which is a scaled down copy of a prototype worn wheel profile. Working to those standards cannot be any easier or more difficult than working in P4 except that the wheels have a slightly deeper flange to help them stay on the track.

 

The fact that some other wheel profiles work well through the points is a bonus.

 

So EM-SF has wheels with deeper flanges that will stay on the track better than P4 and will accept other wheel profiles with no difficulty as long as they have a B2B of 16.5mm and a flange thickness of less than 0.8mm..

 

How can P4 be "easier" than that?

 

 

Looking at the numbers you need to build to simililar or tighter tolerances compared to P4 to get your trains to run as smooth or as reliably if you use typical EM wheels. Ideally wheels with a maximum  0.5mm flange thickness are required to get practical  clearances and back to back tolerance for your wheel sets using 0.8mm flangeways. Your Manchester wheels should have a flange width around 0.46mm, and that is ideal for your track and flangeways. However if your flanges match the Manchester profile, then your flanges are only 0.55mm, and without working suspension or compensation like P4, your track will need to be built to a higher level of flatness compared to wheels using the deeper EM flanges.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, nswgr1855 said:

Looking at the numbers you need to build to simililar or tighter tolerances compared to P4 to get your trains to run as smooth or as reliably if you use typical EM wheels. Ideally wheels with a maximum  0.5mm flange thickness are required to get practical  clearances and back to back tolerance for your wheel sets using 0.8mm flangeways. Your Manchester wheels should have a flange width around 0.46mm, and that is ideal for your track and flangeways. However if your flanges match the Manchester profile, then your flanges are only 0.55mm, and without working suspension or compensation like P4, your track will need to be built to a higher level of flatness compared to wheels using the deeper EM flanges.

 

 

Please don't bother yourself with the quality of the Manchester wheeled (all rigid) vehicles and my EM-SF track.

 

It all works just fine. I wouldn't have posted details on here if I had any doubts about it. As it was a bit of an experiment, it has been thoroughly tested and checked before I was willing to let anybody else see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Please don't bother yourself with the quality of the Manchester wheeled (all rigid) vehicles and my EM-SF track.

 

It all works just fine. I wouldn't have posted details on here if I had any doubts about it. As it was a bit of an experiment, it has been thoroughly tested and checked before I was willing to let anybody else see it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im sure your Manchester wheels work fine on your well built, nicely flowing non superelevated prototype curved turnouts. The finest flanges I have on my layout are about 0.6mm deep and these now stay on my rougher HO track with superelevation of 1mm on 914mm curves. They are the wheels that find any problems in my trackwork. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

Im sure your Manchester wheels work fine on your well built, nicely flowing non superelevated prototype curved turnouts. The finest flanges I have on my layout are about 0.6mm deep and these now stay on my rougher HO track with superelevation of 1mm on 914mm curves. They are the wheels that find any problems in my trackwork. 

 

I agree completely that such things as radius and difference in rail height from one side to the other will make a big difference to what works and what doesn't.

 

As I mentioned on the other thread, I have run a 6 wheeled vehicle successfully on Buckingham through slightly dodgy tight radius points but that has a flexible mechanism. The rigid 4 wheelers are not so happy and derail quite badly, mostly due to the poor levels of the rail tops. The small flanges just ride up and over the rail too easily.

 

I am not sure that running really fine wheels on rough track is a recipe for successful running, especially if your underframes are rigid.

 

My experiments have involved running flat, well made vehicles, which have superb consistency in wheel profile (they used their own form tool and turned all their own wheels), back to backs (The Manchester guys had a back to back of 16.5mm plus or minus nothing that I can measure) on flat, (I don't usually blow my own trumpet but!) well made track.

 

It is a combination that should work well in P4 and it works well in EM-SF too.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree completely that such things as radius and difference in rail height from one side to the other will make a big difference to what works and what doesn't.

 

As I mentioned on the other thread, I have run a 6 wheeled vehicle successfully on Buckingham through slightly dodgy tight radius points but that has a flexible mechanism. The rigid 4 wheelers are not so happy and derail quite badly, mostly due to the poor levels of the rail tops. The small flanges just ride up and over the rail too easily.

 

I am not sure that running really fine wheels on rough track is a recipe for successful running, especially if your underframes are rigid.

 

My experiments have involved running flat, well made vehicles, which have superb consistency in wheel profile (they used their own form tool and turned all their own wheels), back to backs (The Manchester guys had a back to back of 16.5mm plus or minus nothing that I can measure) on flat, (I don't usually blow my own trumpet but!) well made track.

 

It is a combination that should work well in P4 and it works well in EM-SF too.  

Fortinately the wagons with the 0.6mm deep flanges are only on short 4 wheel wagons. Most models I have use 0.7mm deep flanges. I use curves suitable to the models I run, and where trains derail due to rough track I adjusted the track so the transition to superelevated track is gradual. My wheels typically can have a back to back that can vary up to 0.1mm. I do get reliable running, (most of the time) and to prove the point here is a lima TGV, with narrow NEM flanged wheels turned down to 0.7mm flange depth on all cars except the trailing non powered 'power car' with H0 finescale 1.23mm wide wheels, 0.7mm flange depth doing a H0 scale speed of 265 km/h. Track is a mix of 1mm flangeways and old 1.25mm flangeways. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, nswgr1855 said:

Fortinately the wagons with the 0.6mm deep flanges are only on short 4 wheel wagons. Most models I have use 0.7mm deep flanges. I use curves suitable to the models I run, and where trains derail due to rough track I adjusted the track so the transition to superelevated track is gradual. My wheels typically can have a back to back that can vary up to 0.1mm. I do get reliable running, (most of the time) and to prove the point here is a lima TGV, with narrow NEM flanged wheels turned down to 0.7mm flange depth on all cars except the trailing non powered 'power car' with H0 finescale 1.23mm wide wheels, 0.7mm flange depth doing a H0 scale speed of 265 km/h. Track is a mix of 1mm flangeways and old 1.25mm flangeways. 

 

 

I think that amply demonstrates that what you and I are trying to achieve are just about at the opposite ends of the modelling spectrum.

 

In my pre-grouping world, 60mph is considered quick! I also have much shorter trains, lots of shunting and propelling moves (as I am modelling a terminus station) and curves of much larger radii.

 

Fair play to you for getting things to run like that. I wouldn't fancy my chances with such fine wheels but with variations in profiles and having points with two different checkrail settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/10/2022 at 20:43, Dave John said:

Just to mention another source for wheels Lacathedrale. I have used the 51L / Wizard coach and wagon wheels for EM for years, they run fine for me. 

Thank you, that's very kind. 

 

I have the gauges and built a half-crossing and straight track to run my EM wagons over, but for the sake of having a bash at it I'm going to try P4 first. I'm fairly certain as per @t-b-g it will all end in tears as too much hard work, but I think i'd be short changing myself if I didn't TRY it...

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...