Intending to try 'EM'

[Dad-1]

Hi Richard,

Trackwise I also believe the Peco produced track would be the best way, however I'm currently playing around with C&L where I
already have 5 x yard lengths.
Pointwork is going to HAVE to be home made as I need short points more akin to Streamline 'Short' versions due to the space
limits on the planned board. I never use any computer planning aids, but lay out in 1 : 1 with parts - except I'll have to make
points myself.
I hate to be overly critical, but we have Marcway points with SMP track on the clubs West Bay layout. The track was no problem,
but the points have been slightly unsatisfactory due to the 'V' being so much lower than the adjoining stock and switch rails. This
has caused us a lot of stalling problems with a Heljan loco that has zero vertical movement in the axles. We have also had to re-solder
a couple of times.

I have made 1 '00' point before and it worked apart from never finishing the switch rail pivoting again something I may need to do
on my EM, but using code 75 track I might get enough flexing in the rail to keep fixed.

This is going to be some interesting experiment.

Geoff T.

[Dad-1]

Ahh Stainsacre,

As a Yorkshireman you will understand my low cost approach. I do need replacement axles though
B2B just under 16 mm and the wheels are almost falling off !!
I now need some cheap code 75 rail, oh and see just how much copperclad I have because I can't expect
my first point to be up to standard ..... although I live in perpetual hope !!

Geoff T.

[Bigmet]

...I have made 1 '00' point before and it worked apart from never finishing the switch rail pivoting again something I may need to do on my EM, but using code 75 track I might get enough flexing in the rail to keep fixed...

The code 75 rail will flex very easily and thus the closure rails may be soldered to a gapped copperclad tie bar. If the layout sees long term use, resoldering or a replacement tie bar may be required. The practice you will have had in making the track will mean this is the simplest job.

Not that the layout will last that long if the track building appeals. You will move on to P4 soon enough...

[Bufferstop]

Geoff experiment with soldering an L shaped bit of brass wire, as low down on the inside face of the switch rail as you can get it, then fit it through a hole in the tiebar and turn it under, so that the rail is pivoted. It will last longer than soldering rail direct to tie bar.

[Dad-1]

Bigmet has more faith in my (Latent) abilities than I have !
I will admit to talking to the P4 guys at the Exeter Show a few years back, but super accurate
brass wagon chassis are not for me. All I want to do is try to see if the improved look is worth
the effort.

This is done from my new lap-top on Win10. I'm still trying to get into my emails, remember when these
things came with a book, or the mostly used 'Quick Start' leaflet. Nowadays as good as zilch, ahh it's all
in the programmes ……… but where ??????

Geoff T.

[Bufferstop]

New laptop, Windows 10, doesn't come with an email client, you have a choice of using webmail, you can struggle to get the text a comfortable size depending on who's mail server you use, or go for a third party email client, I use the free version of "eM client" which might be appropriate for you, it also has a neat and tidy looking Calendar which happily talks to most other calendar apps.

[Bigmet]

I will admit to talking to the P4 guys at the Exeter Show a few years back, but super accurate
brass wagon chassis are not for me. All I want to do is try to see if the improved look is worth
the effort...

How is it going? Having travelled the OO finescale, EM, P4 road my first time around, I am sticking with OO. Three reasons:
I want to operate above all else and OO - most of it now RTR - gets the job done.
Code 75 rail RTL track 'closes the gap' to EM track appearance, and that was redoubled when Peco produced their bullhead rail track.
P4 looks utterly wonderful, but you need to be a watchmaker to build a pacific which will operate long term at scale express speed on a four foot minimum radius curve (which is the largest that can potentially be squeezed into the ECML main line track plan I want) and I know my limits; outside valve gear in P4 is beyond my capability if the loco is to run at anything more than a dead slow crawl on a curve. Diesel or electric traction, no problem, but it is steam I want above all else, all 44 classes of it and 24 of these with outside Walschaerts gear: so OO it has to be...

[Dad-1]

Hi Bigmet,

Currently a bit of a disaster, not that anything has gone wrong, but this was
aimed at a budget and relative simplicity. With two locos I was intending to
use sitting here with no real current use, easy ? No way, simply getting wheels
& axles seems beyond my lightweight internet searching.
Suggestions from the EM society - Build chassis for my locos. THAT is not in my
plans for simplicity !!

I have enough going on without that. Firstly a Club shunting layout, the source
of my Frog Juicer problems, eventually understood and easy enough to fix.

Then sitting in the shed is cut wood and two part constructed '0' planks to make
an out and return loop. Again for the Club as we can't offer any '0' running at
present.

Not getting bored by the 'Shut Down'. Luxury even allowed the shunting layout in the kitchen.

Geoff T.

[Bigmet]

...this was aimed at a budget and relative simplicity. With two locos I was intending to use sitting here with no real current use, easy ? No way, simply getting wheels & axles seems beyond my lightweight internet searching. Suggestions from the EM society - Build chassis for my locos. THAT is not in my plans for simplicity ...

For a low cost and simple EM set up I would think small BoBo traction with 2mm axles for two reasons. First because if 'bumping out' RTR loco wheelsets to EM requires longer axles, then they are readily available from old kit wagon and coach wheelsets, and secondly the pair of short -essentially wagon length - wheelbase bogies mounted flexibly will stay on the track on smaller radii more reliably than anything with three or more axles in a rigid frame.

I am unfortunately no longer in touch with an experienced EM modeller; the one I knew well always maintained that the EM soc. pushed the 'ease' a little too hard. Yes, some aspects are simple, but there are also real problems to overcome if you want complete freedom to model any subject that is of interest. And the increasing abundance of fine RTR OO models over the past twenty years meant that most weren't prepared to stay confined to what was simple...

...Not getting bored by the 'Shut Down'. Luxury even allowed the shunting layout in the kitchen...

For those of us in good accomodation and with active interests readily pursued at home it really isn't much of a trial. I am concerned for those with childen in a flat in densely populated urban areas, with open space only at a distance. That's potentially a version of hell.

[gppsoftware]

O.K. 'EM' that elusive move towards accurate scale without actually getting there !!
I think most of us 'Put Up' with the inaccuracies in U.K railway modelling because it's
the easy way to go. There are also technical reasons why '00' fits better into the spaces
we have available.
But I want to try, what could arguably be thought of as better standards. So why not go
the whole way into P4 ? Back to the beginning, because it's easier !

Some time back I bought a pair of EM track roller guides and then on Saturday 28th December
at the West Camel Exhibition I bought 5 lengths of C&L flexi track for £10....
Geoff T.

Some interesting observations here.

My father has been down the EM and P4 routes - his story he:http://www.mrol.com.au/Pages/Vu/Littlehempston

While EM certainly does look better than 00, I could never understand the point of it: if you are aiming for extra accuracy, why stop half way not go the whole hog and go for P4 ? But then again, P4 is just too hard. My father was a professional permanent way engineer, so knew everything about building track correctly. But the problem with P4 is that its tolerances are so tight that it really isn't practical for a layout any larger than a shunting plank.

If one is concerned about accuracy, why not choose 7mm scale ? At least its percentage of 'track gauge inaccuracy' is by far the smallest of all the scales! And when we have the offerings that we do from Heljan and Dapol these days, I'd suggest that it is a much more attractive proposition than it once might have been.

If I was able to have time again, I'd be going for 7mm, not 4mm in any of its forms.

Be aware that C&L, Exactoscale, P4 Track company are all one-man-band operations these days (all in their senior years) and none of them are producing much. My father got caught in the situation where the manufacture of P4 track parts basically dried up and prevented him completing his layout.

[Bigmet]

When Peco began their move into EM in conjunction with the EM Society - something they could have done any time these past thirty or forty years - the thought that crossed my mind was whether this was about maintaining RTL EM track supply into the longer term future.

I am fully in agreement about P4 being 'too difficult': other than for those with the developed skill of watchmakers it simply is, and that's that. O gauge is lovely but too large to do the ambitious four track main line that is the only railway I want to operate, and jusdging by the way pacific steam locos sell, I cannot be alone! And while RTR EM could be produced with the present mechanism refinement now seen in RTR OO, (at last!) that's all taken from developed and long-proven technique for RTR HO. The problem is that the minimum curve radius for EM steam models - apart from relatively few locos of compact dimensions and no splashers - is 36", and actually 48" is more like it for pacifics. It's easier with diesel or electric traction, but 24" radius is 'pushing it' and some prototypes would be 'no go' below 36" radius. So no set track or anything close...

We could equally have UK RTR HO, with the benefit of true scale/gauge ratio. But to make UK models work while maintaining accurate external appearance there would be much the same curve radius restrictions. The very restricted width of the UK prototype around exterior mechanism and wheels is the overruling factor, 11% less than the 10' that is the smallest norm on the European continent, with very common features like close fitting splashers and carrying wheelsets inside fixed bodywork. The very practical compromise of OO it has to be.

[Dad-1]

The more I contemplate EM it becomes clearer why it's not used as extensively as perhaps it could.
Interesting that in many ways we fall back to the railway modellers equation. Time, Space, Cost.
Bigmet fancies some 4 track main line sections where the required turning radius makes P4 impractical.
Then I can see if he looks at EM the time factor as well as minimum turning curves both come into play.
then a final factor of long term reliability for outside cylinder larger locos. In many ways unless exceptionally
dedicated you can't help but fall back to '00' with all it's compromises if you run British railways.

gppsoftware's comment about 7.0 mm '0' gauge makes more sense as each year passes. As with many I simply
shy away because of the space required for anything other than a small shunting yard. At our club one member
has migrated to '0', but he has a large shed and his own trailer. All too easy to get blown away with the presence
of a sound equipped 4-6-0. The cost argument against '0' is almost defeated by not having the space, or need for
more than a few locomotives and a score of wagons. I think Ken has around 5 locomotives, in '00' I have over 80.

To indicated a small shift to '0' at our club we are making a '0' running loop, probably just 16 feet long, a point at
each end and the twin track loop. Not THAT expensive although points do make your eyes water after '00'. To
make certain this track is used I am looking at the Dapol Sentinel and perhaps 3 wagons. The cost will be around
£300. Yet another of the club members has loads of sound equipped '00' locos with each being worth in the region
of £250. So again a good reason the re-think on what scales you're prepared to have.

My EM plan is/was for a 48" shunting layout, tight turns for running nothing bigger than a 0-4-0, or perhaps the
Hornby J94 0-6-0, six coupled don't come shorter than that !!
Much more thinking and asking particularly on getting wheels & axles to fit the 06 and J94.

Geoff T.

[gppsoftware]

Some good points (no pun intended) being made here.

The problem with the Peco EM turnouts is that the choices have been made on the basis of the compromises of space that modellers make, rather than involving people with practical permanent way engineering experience to get something that is actually correct. Mind you, what they have done, is a big step in the right direction.

Bigmet highlights the issue of curve radius. This has been an issue for many years. I think there comes a point when we all have to realise that the radii we are all working at are way under the minimum of the prototype and even those of us with 5 foot radius curves are in the space of continuous check rails and 10 mph speed limits! The radii demanded by EM and P4 are simply pushing us towards more realistic radii which exist for physical reasons both on model and prototype. If we are aiming at the improved accuracy of EM or P4, why are we persisting on destroying that realism by demanding sub-3 foot radius curves ?

Personally, I think British HO should have ruled the day, but alas, history has ensured that that will never happen now because 00 is heavily followed in the UK. Yes, the very practical compromise of 00 it has to be.

The desire for a 4-track main line is probably not realistic in the space that most people have anyway, even for 00. That's probebly when one should consider 2mm. When I built my 'Ashprington Road' (http://www.mrol.com.au/Pages/Vu/AshpringtonRoad) layout, I originally considered the idea of a figure of 8 folded over itself so that I could achieve a 4 track main line. Ashprington Road is 4x8M in size and even at that size (with its 900mm wode boards), 4 tracks would look like a 'track on boards' test track when I wanted to achieve the visual effect of a railway within its environment, not the other way around.

The thing about 7mm is that although the costs appear high, you don't have to have so much of it. I've got one of the Heljan 43xx locos (http://www.mrol.com.au/Pages/Vu/Heljan43xxModifications). I can sit at my bench with my jaw on the bench. Why do I need more 7mm locos when I have one of these!!! The shear 'presence' that 7mm has means that each vehicle is a 'scene' in its own right. You don't need dozens of them like you do in smaller scales.

I'd suggest that an 00 layout with 80 locos on it would be very 'cluttered'! In practice, I'd suggest that they probably aren't all on the layout at the same time.

[Dad-1]

Hi gppsoftware,

The figure of 80 locos is accurate enough, but has to be seen in the context of different layouts.
There can be a set for each environment, compounded by covering two distinct periods on the
same layout.
The "Thomas Layout" has 7 locomotives that are packed into a dedicated stock box with all relevant
rolling stock, vehicles, people and removable scenic items. It makes it easy to exhibit just pick up the
stock box and layout, although the control systems are not dedicated and have to be picked up.

Then my HS-II shunting layout follows the same principal, two locomotives chosen by their very short
length. Again packed into a dedicated box that in this case includes control equipment as well as all
other items required.

I run Diesels in the loft, and before I drifted off to steam days I'd collected 16 locos. This is how it's
all too easy to build up that excessive 'collection', we've hit 25 before the main layout that covers a
joint GWR & LMS working and then into early BR days.

With 7 mm you just simply can't shoot off in all directions, it's essential to know exactly what you want.
How many of us know exactly what we want when we start ? I can clearly remember the decision to just
'DO' blue diesels when I began. Too much of a 'butterfly mind' in those early days !! I know I still like
to venture into every aspect hence trying some turnout and track making and whatever catches my eye next ?

Geoff T.

[Bigmet]

I 'lucked in' to the space required for my four track main line in OO, and then had to spend quite some time finding a suitable real location that was genuinely confined, to enable realistic modelling of the scene. Bottom line is that I am a timetable operator above all else, and don't go in for scenery more than a few yards beyond the railway fence. I can't run trees on a timetable, or shunt houses, or form trains out of road vehicles you see...

What I will have when complete is a 7.5m clear run of the four track on a very slight curve (that really existed) to 'bomb' the fast trains along. (Roughly a scale half mile radius looks good. In Hornby set track terms with curves spaced at 67mm centres that's roughly R150.) The horribly tight 30"+ radius curves either end will be concealed. This will be a 'theatre of operation' on which the trains make their entrances and exits in short. It's still building...

The loco plan is primarily based on the allocations from 1955 to 62, and the locos operate in their time slots as BR(ER) transitions from steam power to diesel. The 14 core steam classes are represented by 32 locos, the most numerous classes the N2 and N7 whch operated the inner sub. service, as they are shedded on scene and thus permanently on view. The 'occasional visitor' steam traction amounts to another 30 classes, one of each is the plan, I am still short a few. Then there are 18 diesel classes in the area which appear as the steam classes they displace are withdrawn to be represented by 26 locos/DMU's. The most numerous are inevitably the class 30 and class 105 which take on the workings formerly operated by the N2 and N7. At any one time there will be a maximum of 58 locos working, as some of the steam classes not only appeared in the area after dieselisation was underway, but actually after a couple of the first diesels had been 'took away', (for preservation in the case of DP1).

Now for 'The joy of OO'. When I set out on this plan, my guess was that half of the required traction classes should become available in RTR OO, as they were popular and/or numerous. I would have to make the rest, but fortunately these were the one-offs and not absolutely essential, so my usual slow progress in making models would suffice. Instead what I now have is all the essential steam and diesel classes and over half the 'occasional visitor' steam traction, including all the difficult items but one. I am gambling on a B16 appearing in RTR, and doing the easier 0-6-0s myself in the meantime. That's given me more time to work on rolling stock, where ex-LMS and BR's build of LMS design derived wagons is one 'big hole' in RTR provision for the BR steam period, the other of course more specific for my needs, the ex-LNER passenger stock.

My original plan had been a large US layout in HO, given the relatively cheap high grade models that were available in the late 90s compared to the then very poor showing of UK RTR OO. But then came our Chinese revolution and my 'first love' of the ECML looked possible based on RTR OO; and this has been better than I anticipated. Still not possible in N gauge, way insufficient good traction models that suit just for a start; and O gauge won't fit even if the RTR models were available, other than in the garden. This last I did give serious consideration having had OO outdoors for some years: but then thought about growing older, liking being in the warm and dry... OO Triumphant!