RTR EM Gauge Track from Peco.

[RichardS]

Assuming Guy Fawkes Day is not the new April Fools Day this announcement on the EMGS website is an interesting development in the broader gauge sector of the hobby.

http://www.emgs.org/society-announces-r ... uge-track/

[David Thorpe]

That's a terrific boost for EM, which I feel has been flagging a bit over the last few years. Not so good, I suppose, for Exactoscale, SMP and C&L. Certainly if I was an 00 modeller thinking of changing to either P4 or EM, this development might well sway me towards the latter.

DT

[Le Corbusier]

That's a terrific boost for EM, which I feel has been flagging a bit over the last few years. Not so good, I suppose, for Exactoscale, SMP and C&L. Certainly if I was an 00 modeller thinking of changing to either P4 or EM, this development might well sway me towards the latter.

DT

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for. If you want correctly gauged track, ease of installation without the need for track building skills and I assume a high level of reliability then it would appear a very attractive option.

If you want specific proto typical modelling, then it is perhaps only useful for the fiddleyard?

[RichardS]

That's a terrific boost for EM, which I feel has been flagging a bit over the last few years. Not so good, I suppose, for Exactoscale, SMP and C&L. Certainly if I was an 00 modeller thinking of changing to either P4 or EM, this development might well sway me towards the latter.

DT

I suppose it depends on what you are looking for. If you want correctly gauged track, ease of installation without the need for track building skills and I assume a high level of reliability then it would appear a very attractive option.

If you want specific proto typical modelling, then it is perhaps only useful for the fiddleyard?

Indeed Tim, but I wonder what the impact would be if this society was to stump up the cash to develop the same with Peco.

Very few model railways reach the heights of a total masterpiece unless built by a team with individual skills. There are a few gifted individuals who are masters of all trades. Thus we see many layouts with maybe excellent stock or excellent track but lousey scenery and vice versa and all places in between. We also see many built by average modellers with average skills in all areas.

Anything which moves the hobby forward has to be positive. What will other component makers do? Carry on I expect - they've had years to take the step that is being taken. If they sink it's no good moaning about the enterprise of others.

Interesting times but I note cost hasn't been mentioned yet.

[David Catton]

Can't help wondering if the Society's powers that be have made contact with Peco or will now make contact with Peco to get equivalent products to P4 standards. After all, there's lots of members' funds stashed away in the Society's bank account and why not at least find out how much investment it would take and then ask the membership if they would support the resulting products?

Even if used for fiddle yards and test tracks, provided the prices were acceptable, this could an interesting development.

DC

[steamraiser]

As both C&L and Exactoscale already produce plain track bases, why bother to ask Peco to also produce plain track?

Various UK railways had differing panel lengths and differing sleeper lengths, as well as differing layouts of timbers in point and crossing work.

We are currently well supported for track components by C&L and Exactoscale to meet our needs.

For me the first step to fine scale standards was learning how to build my own point work in 00.

If people cannot be bothered to learn those basic skills are they going to be bothered to carry out and learn the skills to convert / produce P4 stock?

There is also the question of cost and retail price in relation to the volume of sales.

Gordon A

[Philip Hall]

I think it’s a useful development, but of course how much they will sell depends on the price charged. For someone who would like to try for the better appearance of EM but lacks the confidence to build track, then it’s an attractive idea. Gaining track building skills for more complicated stuff that is not available can come later, and having decent pointwork ready to lay out of the box will save so much time for a beginner. I am particularly struck by the correct pointwork (a B6) as opposed to the standard Peco geometry. I guess that plain track went with any approach to Peco for pointwork.

If the same were to come about for P4, for the same reasons and to the same standards (nothwithstanding whether the rail might be inclined in the chairs or not) then I thinks it’s good for the same reasons, beginners etc. True, we are well served for track and pointwork already in P4, and there is the question of gauge widening to consider (so maybe we don’t need track?), but being able to buy a B6 off the shelf ready to plonk down would be great, not just for a starter layout.

I’ve got all the components I will need for all the track on the new layout, but it’s going to take me a while to make it all up, which is fine, because I am saving a lot of money. But it’s the time vs money thing again!

Philip

[Le Corbusier]

but being able to buy a B6 off the shelf ready to plonk down would be great, not just for a starter layout.

I wonder .... my thinking is that for the scenic sections sleeper layout varies considerably from region to region and era to era ... then you have the choice of chair to consider followed by the nature of the tie bars and rodding. It seems to me that if P4 is about anything it is about these sorts of things?

.... so fiddle yard and test track perhaps, but would it really work for the rest?

[nberrington]

I do think it is worth exploring for P4, regardless of the reservations expressed above. Moving to finer standards some years ago had me weighing pros and cons of EM vs P4.

I suspect many people might now be swayed to EM rather to us. Good for them, not so much for our society.

It would be useful to make P4 accessible to more modellers - escpecially if the idea of trackbuilding scares them.

[John Donnelly]

but being able to buy a B6 off the shelf ready to plonk down would be great, not just for a starter layout.

I wonder .... my thinking is that for the scenic sections sleeper layout varies considerably from region to region and era to era ... then you have the choice of chair to consider followed by the nature of the tie bars and rodding. It seems to me that if P4 is about anything it is about these sorts of things?

.... so fiddle yard and test track perhaps, but would it really work for the rest?

I guess it depends on how accurate you want to be. 5 years or so ago when I returned to the hobby I chose P4 due to the way it looked overall, not because the chairs had the correct number bolts (which you can't see from 3 feet away anyway) and given that turnouts had to be built and wheels changed it was no harder to go P4 than EM.

Had RTR EM track been available then, I may have chosen differently...

[Jol Wilkinson]

One of the reasons often quoted for moving to EM or P4 is to be able to create more accurate or realistic models. Unless the EMGS/Peco produce further products such as crossings, slips, etc. then it will be difficult to produce more varied or complex track layouts. Therefore you would have to build some trackwork at least, which means that you are little better off than before. C&L already produce "flexitrack" and point components and kits (although the latter are about twice the price than Peco large radius BH points cost from the discount houses).

This new product will only be available from the EMGS, which probably means that the great majority of 00 modellers probably won't even be aware of its existence or may not be keen to join the EMGS or attend one of their two annual shows to buy it. So while it is a positive move, I am not yet sure as to what impact it is likely to have.

[Noel]

R-t-r has three essential components: track, rolling stock and locomotives [which present different problems to rolling stock].

The Peco EM track is a step forward, but currently will only allow a limited layout. It's a bit chicken and egg in that that limitation will mean that some potential users, at least, will not take it up because of its lack of flexibility and the lack of more complex pointwork, but those will not appear unless there is a commercially sustainable demand for them. This is probably even more relevant to P4. Incidentally, the depth of the sleepers may make combining the Peco track with other makes or types of track less than totally straightforward. Gauge widening on curves may be an issue in some cases.

Modern r-t-r stock is probably relatively easy to convert to EM, as the width between solebars and location of brake shoes will have less of an impact than they do with P4. New wheelsets may mean extra costs for OO modellers [not all OO wheelsets can be easily moved to the wider gauge].

Locos are another matter; unless you can obtain Ultrascale 'drop-in' replacement wheels or similar, conversion to EM or P4 will probably continue to require at least some willingness and ability to dismantle and reassemble things. It will also have associated costs.

If you already work in EM this development will probably not have much impact, I suspect, whilst it is not enough, in my view, to attract OO modellers. However, the EMGS Board clearly don't agree, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

[David Knight]

The announcement has stirred up interest on RMweb, 55 replies at last count and growing. The key thing here is the creation of rtr points, EM flex track or at least track bases have been available for at least 30 years. I know because I was tempted by them but the lack of point work, out to be more specific, bullhead point work, stopped me from becoming a convert back then. Conversion of stock was easy as you could even get Romfords in EM and this was in Canada . Will Peco go the extra 0.63 mm? I suppose that would be up to us and the building of a business model.

Cheers,

David

[Philip Hall]

The thickness of the Peco 00 sleepers is about the same as Exactoscale FastTrack, so
I don’t see much problem there. For me, whilst it would be nice to have all the right kind of chairs etc. - I did on the last (small) layout - time means I won’t be doing it this time around. Now my focus is on the overall effect.

I think it’s just a small step which might bring a few into our fold, despite the obvious limitations. The EMGS obviously think it’s worth an investment and the pointwork looks very nice.

Philip

[RichardS]

Now my focus is on the overall effect. Philip

And surely this is the essence of railway modelling although there will always be the fastidious who demand things to be as accurate as possible despite also having to overlook a multitude of compromise, inaccuracy and make-believe.

If you read the RMweb thread it is clear that EMGS have additional plans presumably depending on how well their first items are received.

All it will take is for Mr Bachmann/Dapol/Rapido et al to offer exchange bogies for their diesels/electrics with EM wheel sets and the ball will be rolling. Most wagons and coaches can easily be altered. If I recall correctly Dapol once released their J94 with EM axles included in the box.

I don't think the core of 'model engineers' in S4S will change course but I wouldn't be too sure about others. Those without a big investment in P4 might be swayed. I'm afraid I am already feeling slightly wobbly and I bet I'm not alone.

We shall see.

[Le Corbusier]

I don't think the core of 'model engineers' in S4S will change course but I wouldn't be too sure about others. Those without a big investment in P4 might be swayed. I'm afraid I am already feeling slightly wobbly and I bet I'm not alone.

We shall see.

Not sure I follow the reasoning Surely the difference between P4 and EM is the wish to go for greater accuracy ... After all EM looks pretty good and if it is the general impression you are after why bother with P4

Personally I love the process of working out what would have been built in terms of track and trying to copy as near as possible ... for example I love Allan Goodwillie's pointwork on Wemys where he has modelled the considerable variety in the timbering etc.

[Philip Hall]

When I mentioned the overall effect I would be looking for, I should say that a fundamental part of that is the look of wheels and track ie flangeways and the like. From a distance I can still see such things although I admit EM is pretty close. In a different time and a different place... But starting to build a fairly large railway (by some standards) does mean, for me at least, that the precise design and detailing of point and crossing work is secondary to the appearance of fine wheels and flangeways which is more obvious even from a distance. It still has to run impeccably, despite my use of uncompensated
or sprung RTR which is another way for me to save time and get my big train set more quickly.

Also most of my modelling friends work in P4 so it’s a bit like the 0 gauge lads who meet up and run trains on each other’s railways from time to time. I will be able to do that in P4 without having to lug half
the local timber yard around to an exhibition to do it!

Philip

[RichardS]

Surely the difference between P4 and EM is the wish to go for greater accuracy.
Indeed but this only applies to track gauge and wheels. Everything else can be of an equal standard in any gauge or scale.

After all EM looks pretty good and if it is the general impression you are after why bother with P4
Yup, that's what I'm saying may be right for some who might be influenced by this development

Personally I love the process of working out what would have been built in terms of track and trying to copy as near as possible ... for example I love Allan Goodwillie's pointwork on Wemys where he has modelled the considerable variety in the timbering etc.

And your passion for this aspect is that interest in the engineering which I doubt will not be shared by all.

One of the arguments for doing P4 over EM is that if you have to make the points/track you might as well do it in P4. That argument is now in the process of being nullified. I'm pretty sure that if there were PECO P4 points they would be bought by S4S members. In the absence of these there will be potential members and some existing members who will look at EM now as a more attractive proposition even if it is 'less accurate.'

It all depends what you want to acheive and how much compromise you willingly accept.

[Knuckles]

I've built a handfull of P4 points, 3 standard turnouts and a single slip. That's currently it.
I enjoyed it and am looking forward to starting the next P4 layout once a plan can finally be finalized.

That said, if P4 Ready To Plant/Plonk turnouts end up being made and they are no more than at a maximum £30 ish a pop I'd buy a few, that's without doubt. £20 or less each would be great.

[David Knight]

Not to be ignored is the matter of price. Gavin has opined that £30 a pop might be his top end price, well at that price for even a basic BLT is going to run £120 + for which you could buy a loco. I have time and adequate skill to build my own so will stay with that option. Of course this is all speculation as the announcement of P4 RTR points hasn't happened yet, so back to work.

Cheers,

David

[Le Corbusier]

One of the arguments for doing P4 over EM is that if you have to make the points/track you might as well do it in P4. That argument is now in the process of being nullified. I'm pretty sure that if there were PECO P4 points they would be bought by S4S members. In the absence of these there will be potential members and some existing members who will look at EM now as a more attractive proposition even if it is 'less accurate.'

It all depends what you want to achieve and how much compromise you willingly accept.

I am surprised ... but assume that you are right.

P4 I always understood to be more demanding than EM come what may .... the track needs to be more accurate to ensure good running with the finer wheels .... and stock (most advise) should be sprung or compensated .... otherwise why else do people favour EM?

I would also point out that many finescale OO modellers build their own track for the same reasons I mentioned earlier, but unlike Philip are prepared to live with the narrower gauge, cruder wheels and wider flangeways ... for them Peco is a fiddleyard option.

Without wishing to offend and with no sense of superiority .....

I have always categorised OO as a mixed bag of modellers ranging from plug and play to exquisite finescale. At the finescale end I have tended to think that people are locked in to a large collection and perhaps have a greater interest in overall impression, formations, timetabling and scenics (though most build there own track to create the required impression). There are some very fine OO layouts which I admire greatly.

EM I have thought of as a fantastic halfway house ... much finer track gauge and appearance but by report without the grief of P4. I am advised it is less demanding on stock and more forgiving in the track laying. Those modelling in EM I have always thought of in two categories ... those with a historic commitment/loyalty (much stock already built) and those for whom the track and wheels are not really distinguishable from P4 particularly for the kind of layout they are building. It goes without saying that there are some exquisite EM layouts and I very seriously considered EM myself on returning to modelling.

P4 it seems to me is a state of mind ... an approach which tends towards an obsession with detail and has a focus on track and wheels. This I am aware is a personal view ... but with the finescale approach being so well represented in both EM & OO it does seem to be the point of difference.

The fact that a fair few P4 modellers also model in the other gauges is interesting ....rather than abandoning one for the other.

So I will watch the Peco venture with considerable interest - but more I think from the viewpoint of EM than any real fear for P4.

[Jol Wilkinson]

If you read the RMweb thread it is clear that EMGS have additional plans presumably depending on how well their first items are received.

All it will take is for Mr Bachmann/Dapol/Rapido et al to offer exchange bogies for their diesels/electrics with EM wheel sets and the ball will be rolling. Most wagons and coaches can easily be altered. If I recall correctly Dapol once released their J94 with EM axles included in the box.

I don't think the core of 'model engineers' in S4S will change course but I wouldn't be too sure about others. Those without a big investment in P4 might be swayed. I'm afraid I am already feeling slightly wobbly and I bet I'm not alone.

We shall see.

Richard,

I have taken another look at the RMweb thread and can't see where additional products are mentioned. Can you enlighten?

The main thrust of the RMweb discussion seems to have become a criticism of the EMGS "distribution" proposals, i.e.you either have to be a member of the EMGS or attend one of their two annual shows to buy the track. This is presumably from 00 modellers who are used to a variety of easy and cheap purchase options.

One fact from the EMGS Chairman's post on the RMweb thread is that the sleepers will be .5mm thicker than "standard" but does that mean thin or thick standard?

The EMGS website has a "Tweets" thread which has some information. The points will be "Electrofrog only" using Peco code 75 BH rail.

Pricing is obviously in the hands of the EMGS, but for interest the Peco Large Radius BH point has a RRP of £32.50 but the discount houses do them for less e.g. £26.00.

Do you really see Bachmann and Co offering EM gauge options for their products? The logistics of offering a viable exchange system would probably be too expensive. Don't forget we are talking about "converting" 00 modellers here, who have become used to relatively cheap models, instant delivery, etc. If most wagons or coaches can be easily altered then providing EM wheels could be an option, but to what profile standard? I expect the RTR manufacturers will just leave it to the buyer to use already established aftermarket products.

Jol

[Knuckles]

P4 it seems to me is a state of mind ... an approach which tends towards an obsession with detail and has a focus on track and wheels. This I am aware is a personal view ... but with the finescale approach being so well represented in both EM & OO it does seem to be the point of difference.

The fact that a fair few P4 modellers also model in the other gauges is interesting ....rather than abandoning one for the other.

If it helps, for me P4 is all about the track and wheels,not getting everything everywhere 100%. Life is too short so on certain things a perfection approach is used yet not everywhere.

You can have fine scale fidelity in any scale and gauge but the track and wheels in 00, even with Bullhead, are still thicker, lumpier and narrow gauge. The more I see it the more I can't ignore it so it becomes painful to look at in most cases.

As to not abandoning P4, I model in N, 00, P4 and a teeny bit of O.

I model in 00 because of the commitment thing, since a young boy it was 00 and I now have a fair amount of stock that I'm loath to waste or sell. I pine away to operate them but they are stored or relegated to an 'Inglonook'
test track on my desk.

I model in P4 because...well, it's P4. Nuff said. I want this to be the main focus but due to the '00 thing' realistically I need a layout in both scales. As has been said in other threads the loft is being prepared with a top level so both indeed can be created.

I model in N because of the space saving quality, plus modern standards of N gauge are way better than they used to be and so, I am building a small layout above my bed. Bonus.

O is more a dabble, built a wagon and brake van but again, I have space for a small layout if it comes to it.

So for me at least modelling in multiple scales has its place. More variety, no loss of RTR perk and from 00 you can always convert the favourites or build a chassis for P4 stuff.


And to get back on track, paying £10-15 a point is much more desirable but I was trying to be realistic on the cheaper end of things with expectations.

I've done the maths too for the future layouts and if I make my own blades and crossings like I did before in some cases then it's pennies. Hybrid approach doesn't hurt though. If it came to it you could always treat yourself to a ready to run turnout sandwich once in a while.

[PeteT]

Well done everyone for not biting on post 52 on RMW:

In 1:76 scale, EM is the best possible compromise you can have between fidelity and good running for standard gauge models. There are good workable standards for all the important dimensions.

Possibly inflamatory, possibly just meaning it as 'in my opinion' but worded it badly...

The level of compromise is up to the individual, as are what constitutes the important dimensions. For me the big selling point of P4 is the flangeway gap - pointwork and level crossings are the selling point, probably more so than the flanges.

But each to their own, I can see why many people do choose EM instead, and of course those who stick with 00.

For fiddleyards etc these would be an obvious bonus if done in P4, but even as a starting point or first layout they would be an excellent option. That first pair of wagons, or loco, and point, we build may have issues. How do we know which one to look at when something falls off? My current layout uses C&L COTS common crossings and switch blades, which are not cheap but take out several variables which have helped me prove to myself that I am perfectly capable of producing working models to P4 standards. My next point will be built myself, as I know I can and know I have stock to prove it with, and will set aside the modelling time to it when that particular round tuit is delivered.

[RichardS]

If you read the RMweb thread it is clear that EMGS have additional plans presumably depending on how well their first items are received.

All it will take is for Mr Bachmann/Dapol/Rapido et al to offer exchange bogies for their diesels/electrics with EM wheel sets and the ball will be rolling. Most wagons and coaches can easily be altered. If I recall correctly Dapol once released their J94 with EM axles included in the box.

I don't think the core of 'model engineers' in S4S will change course but I wouldn't be too sure about others. Those without a big investment in P4 might be swayed. I'm afraid I am already feeling slightly wobbly and I bet I'm not alone.

We shall see.

Richard,

I have taken another look at the RMweb thread and can't see where additional products are mentioned. Can you enlighten?

The main thrust of the RMweb discussion seems to have become a criticism of the EMGS "distribution" proposals, i.e.you either have to be a member of the EMGS or attend one of their two annual shows to buy the track. This is presumably from 00 modellers who are used to a variety of easy and cheap purchase options.

One fact from the EMGS Chairman's post on the RMweb thread is that the sleepers will be .5mm thicker than "standard" but does that mean thin or thick standard?

The EMGS website has a "Tweets" thread which has some information. The points will be "Electrofrog only" using Peco code 75 BH rail.

Pricing is obviously in the hands of the EMGS, but for interest the Peco Large Radius BH point has a RRP of £32.50 but the discount houses do them for less e.g. £26.00.

Do you really see Bachmann and Co offering EM gauge options for their products? The logistics of offering a viable exchange system would probably be too expensive. Don't forget we are talking about "converting" 00 modellers here, who have become used to relatively cheap models, instant delivery, etc. If most wagons or coaches can be easily altered then providing EM wheels could be an option, but to what profile standard? I expect the RTR manufacturers will just leave it to the buyer to use already established aftermarket products.

Jol

Jol, I refer you to Martin Wales' post on the other thread timed yesterday at 17.19 which refers the previous contributor (who.memtions other items) to Martin's earlier post of 16.59. While not explicit the inference is I feel clear. Hence my use of the words in my post 'depending........received.'

Do I see manufacturers joining in? If they don't investigate it (again?) they would be remiss. Whether it is a commercial viablity is for them to assess and not for us to predict. Parkside before and now Peco already do a wheel exchange for their wagon kits. SLW of course already produce their class 24 in various gauges for a small premium. So clearly the matter is not a definite no.

While rtr may gave been 'cheap' in previous years it is anything but now, however that does not seem to have diminished demand. £275 or so for the Stirling single? Phew. £65 for Bachmann Mk2f with DCC? £25 for a wagon?

While many on RMweb may be the OO modellers you identify, the general enthusiasm they have expressed for an easier way into 'broader guage' modelling is surely a good thing. The mere fact that distribution is being discussed indicates demand.

How we approach hobbies changes as technology changes and the participants change. If it didn't then we'd still be making model trains out of old bean cans and such like. And using clockwork on the carpet.
(Cue the excessively nostalgic modeller here.)

Whatever anybody thinks, however limited the initial range, however resticted the distribution, however compromised the product is from 'reality' etc etc, the EMGS announcement is without doubt important. It's doubly important because PECO are involved.

Does it challenge existing disciplines? Of course it does and thats whats driving some of the posts. The ramifications if successful could upset the established order.