EM wheels on 18.83mm track

[John McAleely]

I had been swayed towards Martin Goodall's ideas, but there is no guarantee that they would work any better on an exhibition type layout. Plus, why does Mr Goodall take such delight in being coy about his methods? He claims to be able to prevent wheels from striking the crossing nose but won't explain, leaving it as some kind of puzzle. Not very inspiring.

I believe this is the post in question:

viewtopic.php?p=32371#p32371

Much as I am reluctant to fan this particular topic (it seems to meet standards I've seen elsewhere for trolling - starting as it did, most recently, with a cross posted duplicate posting - yuk - please don't make that a habit Martin), I recognise our forum has imperfect search software, so hopefully the link above is useful.

[Martin Wynne]

He claims to be able to prevent wheels from striking the crossing nose but won't explain, leaving it as some kind of puzzle. Not very inspiring.

Hi Colin,

Apart from adjusting his check rails (in which case the track would be no longer P4) the only way I can think of is to use American-style self-guarding frogs (which don't require check rails). That's not prototypical for UK bullhead track, and requires all wheels (loco and wagon) to be exactly the same width.

regards,

Martin.

[Martin Wynne]

I believe this is the post in question:

viewtopic.php?p=32371#p32371

So now we know that Martin Goodall is NOT using P4 track. He has widened the check gauge by reversing the gauges. That is not the correct way to use them, and the result is not P4 track.

Conundrum solved. Topic over.

Martin.

[Tim V]

I'm sorry to hear your comments Colin.

I didn't originally intend contributing to this thread. It is exactly the type of misinformed article in MRJ234 that leads to confusion. The fact is that over the years very little has been written on reliable running in any scale, only two articles get near the mark, the last one was in 1977!

Deeper flanges are not the cure for better running, they are only one aspect that could be looked at, after all other avenues have been explored. It was that that so annoyed me about the MRJ article and why this thread is here. that I didn't intend contributing to.

[martin goodall]

I had been swayed towards Martin Goodall's ideas, but there is no guarantee that they would work any better on an exhibition type layout. Plus, why does Mr Goodall take such delight in being coy about his methods? He claims to be able to prevent wheels from striking the crossing nose but won't explain, leaving it as some kind of puzzle. Not very inspiring.

I believe this is the post in question:

viewtopic.php?p=32371#p32371

Much as I am reluctant to fan this particular topic (it seems to meet standards I've seen elsewhere for trolling - starting as it did, most recently, with a cross posted duplicate posting - yuk - please don't make that a habit Martin), I recognise our forum has imperfect search software, so hopefully the link above is useful.

CORRECT! At least someone had the gumption to look it up. No doubt others will be grateful to John for making the effort on their behalf.

I'm getting a bit bored with this, and really can't be bothered to go on repeating myself - hence my 'cryptic' reference to my previous writing on this topic.

Incidentally (taking up a point which I think l Jim made), if you can't prove to yourself that something works by doing it on your own layout, how on earth are you expected to prove it at all? I have made it clear that if anyone else wants proof, they have only to perform the experiment themselves.

[martin goodall]

I believe this is the post in question:

viewtopic.php?p=32371#p32371

So now we know that Martin Goodall is NOT using P4 track. He has widened the check gauge by reversing the gauges. That is not the correct way to use them, and the result is not P4 track.

Conundrum solved. Topic over.

Martin.

...... the purpose being to make sure that P4 wheels would run through the crossing without any risk of hitting the crossing nose. For my reason for doing that, see Ray Hammond's article on "Scale Four" in Marshalling Yard Vol 15 No.1, where he explained the problem which prompted me to seek a practical solution while still (at that time) using P4 wheels. I only 'reversed' the check rail and flangeway settings on these two C10 turnouts; the other turnouts on the layout (which are variously B6, B7, and B8) have been built to the orthodox P4 standards without modification.

[Martin Wynne]

CORRECT! At least someone had the gumption to look it up.

The object of a forum such as this is to be friendly and helpful to your fellow modellers.

Not to play tricks on them for your own amusement.

Martin.

[jim s-w]

...... the purpose being to make sure that P4 wheels would run through the crossing without any risk of hitting the crossing nose. For my reason for doing that, see Ray Hammond's article on "Scale Four" in Marshalling Yard Vol 15 No.1, where he explained the problem which prompted me to seek a practical solution while still (at that time) using P4 wheels. I only 'reversed' the check rail and flangeway settings on these two C10 turnouts; the other turnouts on the layout (which are variously B6, B7, and B8) have been built to the orthodox P4 standards without modification.

Your claims are steadily falling apart aren't they Martin? If you bothered to look it up you'd find reference to me trying your experiment years ago and finding EM wheels bind in pointwork. Indeed we tried again when building calcutta sidings 2 as phil didnt want to replace hundreds of EM wheelsets. Didn't work then either so they were all swapped. having done as you suggested, although possibly before you did, do you accept my findings?

Jim

[Armchair Modeller]

EM wheelsets will soon be used in negotiations between the Ukrainian government and rebel forces. Apparently, they hope they will eliminate the likelihood of the peace talks derailing.

Next time you catch a train, just take a close look at how small the flanges look on the real thing. It is frightening - yet they manage (on the whole) to stay on the rails.

Although a relative beginner, I would hope that all of us would have faith in P4 standards. They have been around for a long time now. The Society has a number of long-time devotees who show no signs of giving up. Looking at P4 layouts at exhibitions, there seems little doubt in my mind that well-built layouts and stock work very well. I am sure that some of my stock will derail at some time or other. I am more than willing to believe though that this is more likely due to small, correctable faults in construction than inherent problems with P4 standards. I am determined to stick with what seems to be by far the majority opinion - P4 standards throughout.

If I understand things correctly, the wheelsets available in Fine EM (with narrow P4-style tyres) are only available for a limited number of steam locomotives of GW design. For anything else, EM wheels would be wider than P4 standards. That surely would mean that splashers, cylinders, valve gear etc. would need to be set wider than for P4 wheels?

[jim s-w]

Not just wider splashers. Becuase the overall diameter of an em wheel is greater the splashers would also have to be bigger.

Cheers

Jim

[Terry Bendall]

Looking at P4 layouts at exhibitions, there seems little doubt in my mind that well-built layouts and stock work very well. I am sure that some of my stock will derail at some time or other. I am more than willing to believe though that this is more likely due to small, correctable faults in construction than inherent problems with P4 standards.

This is exactly right. There is ALWAYS a reason why things fall off. All you have to do is to find the reason and correct it.
It may well take a lot of time but it can be done with patience and determination.

Terry Bendall

[Ian Everett]

There is ALWAYS a reason why things fall off. All you have to do is to find the reason and correct it.
It may well take a lot of time but it can be done with patience and determination.

I find that the biggest problem is baseboard joints. I read in another place that the Mostyn boys think the stability of timber used for baseboards is fundamental. I have found that baseboard joints which when made are perfect often end up after a few months or years with bigger than acceptable gaps between the rails. I have used both ply and MDF for the formers for the ends of baseboards and I am sure it is the expansion of these materials, probably due to absorption of damp, that is the cause.

Three questions:

1) should I abandon MDF? (That would be a shame because I have a large stock of it!)

2) is standard ply worse in respect to absorption of damp and hence dimensional stability than the best quality?

3) should timbers be sealed to prevent absorption of damp?

One thing I will certainly do when layout planning is as far as possible to keep track at 90 degrees to baseboard joints, so any expansion does not result in misalignment.

Ian

(Incidentally I once inadvertently used EM wheels for a loco conversion when Gibson made a packing error. The flanges struck the chairs on plain Brooke-Smith track and the loco ran horribly. I'm not sure what this proves - were the chairs not properly seated, so they were too high off the sleepers? I think I'll stick to P4!)

[Simon Glidewell]

There is ALWAYS a reason why things fall off. All you have to do is to find the reason and correct it.
It may well take a lot of time but it can be done with patience and determination.

I find that the biggest problem is baseboard joints. I read in another place that the Mostyn boys think the stability of timber used for baseboards is fundamental. I have found that baseboard joints which when made are perfect often end up after a few months or years with bigger than acceptable gaps between the rails. I have used both ply and MDF for the formers for the ends of baseboards and I am sure it is the expansion of these materials, probably due to absorption of damp, that is the cause.

Three questions:

1) should I abandon MDF? (That would be a shame because I have a large stock of it!)

2) is standard ply worse in respect to absorption of damp and hence dimensional stability than the best quality?

3) should timbers be sealed to prevent absorption of damp?

One thing I will certainly do when layout planning is as far as possible to keep track at 90 degrees to baseboard joints, so any expansion does not result in misalignment.

Ian

(Incidentally I once inadvertently used EM wheels for a loco conversion when Gibson made a packing error. The flanges struck the chairs on plain Brooke-Smith track and the loco ran horribly. I'm not sure what this proves - were the chairs not properly seated, so they were too high off the sleepers? I think I'll stick to P4!)

Hello Ian,

On the timber front, I have always used MDF for my surface material and 2 X 1 softwood frames, with C and L alignment dowels. The baseboards for my layout have really stood the test of time in extremes of temperatures and humidity. I built the boards in west Wales and stored them there for several years; I then brought them to France via BR and the TGV (negotiating the Paris metro en route!) and built SMH. The temperatures in the south of France can hit the upper 40s celsius in the Summer and plummet to minus 10+ in the Winter. My baseboard joins are still spot on and my carpentry skills are utterly hopeless! I think MDF is great for baseboards; just ask Tim Horn. So don't abandon your supplies of it, as it seems a very stable material.

All the best
Simon

[LesGros]

Terry Bendall wrote:

... This is exactly right. There is ALWAYS a reason why things fall off. All you have to do is to find the reason and correct it.
It may well take a lot of time but it can be done with patience and determination...

Which is why I look forward to reading successful P4 modeller Tim V's work on fixing problems. Hopefully, his work will appear in the Snooze rather than MRJ; a magazine which in my part of the world is too difficult to get as an ad hoc copy.

[martin goodall]

Your claims are steadily falling apart aren't they Martin? If you bothered to look it up you'd find reference to me trying your experiment years ago and finding EM wheels bind in pointwork. Indeed we tried again when building calcutta sidings 2 as phil didnt want to replace hundreds of EM wheelsets. Didn't work then either so they were all swapped. having done as you suggested, although possibly before you did, do you accept my findings?

Jim

I'm interested to hear of this experiment. I wonder whether the EM wheels that were tried were the 'modern' type I mentioned (manufactured by Utrascale, KM or Gibson), as opposed to Romford/Markits, etc. (The latter are of excellent quality, but their dimensions won't allow them to be used on P4 track.) I also wonder whether the back-to-back setting used was at or near the minimum P4 value (17.67 to 17.7 mm). If wider, then there might be a problem with the running clearance, and not just through pointwork but also on plain track, but I have only ever used the 17.7mm setting for EM wheels, so have no personal experience of what happens if a wider BB setting is used. As for 'binding' in the pointwork, I assume this means in the crossing flangeways and/or at check rails. This again prompts me to wonder precisely which EM wheel profile was actually being tried out, and also whether the crossing flangeways and/or check rails had been set (either by design or inadvertently) to dimensions which are in fact tighter than the original P4 dimensions.

If using P4 wheels set to the minimum P4 BB gauge one can get away with slightly under-gauge track in P4, and one can also get away with narrower clearances through check rails and crossing flangeways. In fact I suspect that many P4 modellers might be entirely unaware that their gauges may have slightly narrowed the track gauge or the clearances through flngeways and check rails. The tolerances in the P4 dimensions are sufficiently generous to allow this. I don't know whether these tolerances were deliberately designed in to the orignal P4 standards or were just an incidental feature of those standards, but the effects of this were interestingly discussed in the article by Ray Hammond to which I recently referred.

However, I can only speak from my own experience, which is that I have had complete success in using EM wheels on P4 track, and have certainly not experienced any of the problems that Jim has reported. Jeff George has independently reported similar success in using EM wheels on P4 track, and I am aware of one or two other people having done so, although they have kept quiet about it (no doubt for reasons which have become all too obvious in the course of this discussion).

[martin goodall]

If I understand things correctly, the wheelsets available in Fine EM (with narrow P4-style tyres) are only available for a limited number of steam locomotives of GW design. For anything else, EM wheels would be wider than P4 standards. That surely would mean that splashers, cylinders, valve gear etc. would need to be set wider than for P4 wheels?

If EMF wheels are not available for your particular prototype, then you will need just 0.010 of an inch extra clearance on each side of the loco if using EM wheels on P4 track. It would only be a possible issue with certain outside cylinder engines, and I find it hard to believe that there would be any real difficulty in setting splashers, cylinders, valve gear etc. a further 0.010 of an inch from the centre line if that were really necessary, although I suspect that in practice this might not be needed in most cases.

I am aware that some P4 modellers do in any event set cylinders, valve gear etc. a little further apart from the strict scale dimension precisely in order to gain just a little more clearance.

[martin goodall]

Not just wider splashers. Becuase the overall diameter of an em wheel is greater the splashers would also have to be bigger.

Cheers

Jim

It is highly improbable that this will be required in practice. I can't recall offhand the difference between the flange depth of a P4 wheel and the flange depth of an EM wheel (and I haven't got time to go and look it up), but I don't think it can be much more than about 0.010 of an inch, if that. That would be the measure of the extra radius that needs to be accommodated within the splasher. It would have to be a very tight splasher that could not accommodate that.

[LesGros]

martin goodall" wrote:

... This again prompts me to wonder precisely which EM wheel profile was actually being tried out, ...

But, Martin,
This is "precisely" the problem with your thesis; "EM" can mean any one of a number of different profiles. It was your woolly explanation which drew so much criticism when you first proposed your cure-all-the-derailments solution all those years ago.

By contrast, when a modeller asks a supplier for P4 wheels, that is what is supplied, barring picking errors at the wrapping table.
The conclusion for any rational modeller is now clear: Of course it is Your Train-Set. Build it to your selected Standard, be it O; OO; OO-SF; EM; P4; etc. but surely, it is best to avoid this troublesome EM-P4 hybrid.

[iak]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

[Armchair Modeller]

If I understand things correctly, the wheelsets available in Fine EM (with narrow P4-style tyres) are only available for a limited number of steam locomotives of GW design. For anything else, EM wheels would be wider than P4 standards. That surely would mean that splashers, cylinders, valve gear etc. would need to be set wider than for P4 wheels?

If EMF wheels are not available for your particular prototype, then you will need just 0.010 of an inch extra clearance on each side of the loco if using EM wheels on P4 track. It would only be a possible issue with certain outside cylinder engines, and I find it hard to believe that there would be any real difficulty in setting splashers, cylinders, valve gear etc. a further 0.010 of an inch from the centre line if that were really necessary, although I suspect that in practice this might not be needed in most cases.

I am aware that some P4 modellers do in any event set cylinders, valve gear etc. a little further apart from the strict scale dimension precisely in order to gain just a little more clearance.

Sounds like a very good argument for sticking with EM gauge track for EM wheels and P4 track for P4 wheels to me.

Otherwise, it's just one compromise after another, after another.

[Tim V]

Which is why I look forward to reading successful P4 modeller Tim V's work on fixing problems. Hopefully, his work will appear in the Snooze rather than MRJ; a magazine which in my part of the world is too difficult to get as an ad hoc copy.

Hopefully next year in the Snooze.

[jim s-w]

Hi martin

Yes, ultrascale, KM gibson and branchlines EM wheels. I or phil have never used romfords or markits.

If you recall I offered you the opportunity to run your stuff on new street at scaleforum and you refused.

Cheers

Jim

[grovenor-2685]

Wow, 14 posts in one day, why not just accept that Martin and Martin are kite flying and let it drop?
Keith

[martin goodall]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

Yeah, I know the feeling!

[martin goodall]

Hi martin

If you recall I offered you the opportunity to run your stuff on new street at scaleforum and you refused. Cheers

Jim

I think it was just a question of logistics; it was not practically possible to bring a variety of rolling stock with me to Scaleforum that year.

Meanwhile, my stock has run auccessfully both on Tim Venton's Clutton layout, and on Paul Townsend's Highbridge layout (as mentioned in other threads on this forum). That seems a reasonable test to me - both layouts were designed and built solely as P4 layouts, but my stock ran quite happily on them, and proved to be particularly smooth-running when tried out on Highbridge.