Lowdown on EM - how much is it just a case of easing out RTR wheels?

[t-b-g]

22 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

Those locomotives were faulty and should have been returned to the supplier for replacement.

 

I don't know why 00 modellers put up with poor quality control which they wouldn't accept when buying anything else.

 

Martin.

Hello Martin.

 

I am not sure that they would be classed as faulty because they ran perfectly well on "normal" OO. It only became a problem when we tried to run them on the extra fine version with 1mm flangeway gaps. On the commercial RTR track, or even on the intermediate standard with 1.2mm flangeway they ran with no problem. So it was us using narrow flangeways that caused the problem.

[martin_wynne]

46 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am not sure that they would be classed as faulty because they ran perfectly well on "normal" OO.

Hi,

 

What is "normal" 00? There is no published 00 standard which has a flange 1mm thick. The NMRA RP25/110 profile (the standard for all H0 RTR) has a flange 0.8mm thick.

 

RTR locomotives are not cheap. It would be worth obtaining an assurance that the wheels comply with a known standard before ordering. If it turns out that they don't, you would be in a much better position to obtain redress.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

15 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi,

 

What is "normal" 00? There is no published 00 standard which has a flange 1mm thick. The NMRA RP25/110 profile (the standard for all H0 RTR) has a flange 0.8mm thick.

 

RTR locomotives are not cheap. It would be worth obtaining an assurance that the wheels comply with a known standard before ordering. If it turns out that they don't, you would be in a much better position to obtain redress.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

The layout with the 1mm flangeways on the scenic section had Peco Code 100 points in the fiddle yard and the locos ran through them perfectly with the original wheels. When I come across a problem in railway modelling, my first instinct is to see if I can fix it, rather than moan and complain about it and hope somebody else sorts it out for me. I had some spare wheels the right size, so I swapped them for replacement wheels and all was well.

 

Of the 60 or so locos on the layout, only 2 had this problem, so the vast majority of RTR wheels I have experience of will work with a 1mm flangeway but we did get a few that just bumped or lurched slightly. The layout is now being rebuilt in a new location and the new points have 1.2mm flangeways and we get perfect running with all bumps and lurches eliminated completely.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

[martin_wynne]

8 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

When I come across a problem in railway modelling, my first instinct is to see if I can fix it, rather than moan and complain about it and hope somebody else sorts it out for me.

Hi,

 

Sure. That's what I would do. On the other hand, if the somebody else has had a sizeable chunk of your money, it's not unreasonable to expect them to fix it.

 

This is a topic about the principle of using 00 RTR wheels on EM gauge tack. The assumption is that the 00 gauge wheels comply with the published standards, in which case then yes they can be used on EM.

 

The fact of a small minority of 00 gauge models suffering from poor quality control is a separate issue.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi,

 

Sure. That's what I would do. On the other hand, if the somebody else has had a sizeable chunk of your money, it's not unreasonable to expect them to fix it.

 

This is a topic about the principle of using 00 RTR wheels on EM gauge tack. The assumption is that the 00 gauge wheels comply with the published standards, in which case then yes they can be used on EM.

 

The fact of a small minority of 00 gauge models suffering from poor quality control is a separate issue.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

In this case, the layout wasn't even mine, so I hadn't parted with any cash for the locos! I just got lots of brownie points for fixing the problem. But yes, you are quite right, on those particular locos the wheels were not to the recognised standards but they would still work on most OO layouts.

[Izzy]

Having played about in recent years making a small P4 plank using only (mainly) RTR locos with the wheels altered/machined to suit the only thing I can say about consistent OO wheel standards is that there isn’t any. Variable not just between makers but often on the same loco. Fairly easy to fix with a lathe of course, but not really the point. But as @t-b-g says if they run on standard OO track & points then I can’t see how one can complain. 

[PMP]

13 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi,

 

This is a topic about the principle of using 00 RTR wheels on EM gauge tack. The assumption is that the 00 gauge wheels comply with the published standards, in which case then yes they can be used on EM.

.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

A flawed assumption.

Just because a society has decided there’s a ‘standard’ doesn’t mean manufacturers will adopt it.

As there isn’t a universal standard that has been adopted by the industry for OO, any expectation that  RTR OO wheels can be used in a system (EM), with specific tolerances, shows a lack of understanding of the RTR OO market.

[martin_wynne]

5 hours ago, PMP said:

As there isn’t a universal standard that has been adopted by the industry for OO, any expectation that  RTR OO wheels can be used in a system (EM), with specific tolerances, shows a lack of understanding of the RTR OO market.

 

Hi,

 

What I do know is that many modellers are happily running 00 RTR models on 00-SF tracks. EM and 00-SF are variants of the same standard, any wheels which will run on 00-SF will also run on EM if widened by 2.0mm.

 

The OP asked if 00 RTR wheels can be used on EM. If he had asked instead about 00-SF, there would be many replies reporting successful running of 00 RTR models on 00-SF.

 

This negativity around the occasional rogue 00 model doesn't represent the generality of the situation. The OP can reasonably plan to build an EM layout using widened 00 RTR wheels, and deal with any rogue models if the situation arises. Which it well might not.

 

Martin.

[t-b-g]

31 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi,

 

What I do know is that many modellers are happily running 00 RTR models on 00-SF tracks. EM and 00-SF are variants of the same standard, any wheels which will run on 00-SF will also run on EM if widened by 2.0mm.

 

The OP asked if 00 RTR wheels can be used on EM. If he had asked instead about 00-SF, there would be many replies reporting successful running of 00 RTR models on 00-SF.

 

This negativity around the occasional rogue 00 model doesn't represent the generality of the situation. The OP can reasonably plan to build an EM layout using widened 00 RTR wheels, and deal with any rogue models if the situation arises. Which it well might not.

 

Martin.

 

I would agree with that as a good summing up of the situation. The only point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of RTR wheels may not match the EM gauge standards but will run through EM pointwork without problems but that there are a few that I have come across that would not. I was really just suggesting that a plan B might be needed for those few that might not run smoothly.

 

It sounds as if the project will be a pre-grouping period layout based in the south, so any worries about the L & Y tank and the LMS Crab are likely to be of no consequence. I did think it worth talking about the possibility of the L & Y tank being a problem loco when there was a proposal to set the layout as LNWR in Slaithwaite. A bit of L & Y wouldn't be out of the question and the 2-4-2T might have come into play.

 

What I don't know is if all the locos produced have the same profile wheels, or whether there was some variation during the manufacturing process that caused the one I dealt with to have extra thick flanges. Either way, it doesn't matter now.  

Edited December 15, 2021 by t-b-g
typo

[Enterprisingwestern]

I know a bloke who uses biro tubes to widen his rtr wheels, now that can't possibly work can it?!

 

Mike.

[Jeff Smith]

On the practical side, having never tried this, are the wheelsets removed for widening?  What keeps the axles centred, other than maybe the one with the gear?  Presumably quartering can be affected?

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Jeff Smith said:

On the practical side, having never tried this, are the wheelsets removed for widening?  What keeps the axles centred, other than maybe the one with the gear?  Presumably quartering can be affected?

 

If you have a proper "wheel puller" tool, like the GW models one, you can gently easy the wheels out equal amounts either side without disturbing the quartering.

 

Alternatively, if you can get a bit of metal with an axle sized slot in it between the wheel and the frame to support the wheel, you can very gently tap the axle centre with a flat ended punch (I have used a spare 2mm bogie axle before now) using a small hammer and several very gentle taps.

 

I have seen it done by a punch without the supporting metal too, just relying on the frame/chassis to support the wheel but I haven't done one like that.

 

So it can be done without removing the wheels altogether.

[Lacathedrale]

I guess for both wheel pulling and punching you're removing the axles from the loco?

 

I have a set of hardened pin punches, a teensy tiny gear puller and a set of rather more agricultural ones - I'll give them all a bash - but probably on a cheap donor loco rather than the SECR D I've managed to pry open the wallet for...

[Nick C]

I'm in the same position as you @Lacathedrale - I've currently got a Hornby Terrier sat in bits on my workbench waiting to have it's wheels widened! I think in that case however, the biggest challenge will be the inside width of the front Splashers, whether I can take enough material off to fit the wheels in without breaking through. It may be that it'll need finer wheels just for that reason - at the very least it'll need a lot less sideplay on that axle.

[t-b-g]

14 hours ago, Lacathedrale said:

I guess for both wheel pulling and punching you're removing the axles from the loco?

 

I have a set of hardened pin punches, a teensy tiny gear puller and a set of rather more agricultural ones - I'll give them all a bash - but probably on a cheap donor loco rather than the SECR D I've managed to pry open the wallet for...

 

I have seen wheel pullers and punches used with the wheels still in the loco. You just need to take it gently and keep checking. Go too far and you can squeeze them back together. You can space them out from the frames with washers cut to a horseshoe or I have seen black plasticard spacers with slots cut in them glued to the frames to reduce sideplay. The pick ups can be tweaked with tweezers of if the are on a removable keeper plate they can be take off and adjusted.

 

There is an advantage in keeping them in the loco as there is little danger of upsetting the coupling rods and quartering. You can also check clearances in splashers etc. as you go.  

[ardbealach]

On 12/12/2021 at 13:43, t-b-g said:

I would agree that RTR wheels have varied so much over the years that laying down a blanket dimension for setting the back to backs is just not realistic. Even wheels from the same manufacturer can vary from one model to another.

 

The Bachamnn L & Y 2-4-2T and LMS Crab are two that have really thick flanges. I had to re-wheel them both to get them to run on a finescale OO layout, which had 1mm flangeway gaps. There was no back to back setting that would get them through without bumping and lurching.

 

A friend of mine has a simple system. He has converted some RTR locos to EM by simply pulling the wheels out a bit at a time until they just clear the checkrails on an EM point. If they still fit between the rails at that stage, then it seems to work. If they bind between the rails at that point, then the flanges are too thick and the wheels need replacing. He had to re-wheel a Bachmann Crab but the Midland Compound from Bachmann worked OK.

By coincidence it so happened I was just running my Bachmann Crab on my 00 finescale layout when I has just read the note from t-b-g about the wheels on the Bachmann  Crab.  My own Bachmann Crab wasn't at all happy as well when it ran over the new Peco bullhead finescale points. 

 

My first step was, of course, to check the back to backs on the tender with a DOGA gauge.  And the gauge seemed to be correct, but the tender still persisted in climbing over the switch blade of the points when running in reverse tender first. 

 

So I eased the three wheelsets on the tender, moving them in to reduce the back to back centres of each by around 0.5mm.  I also weighted the tender with some lead weight.  It seems to run better now.  But I have also noted that the tender wheels do not appear to have any coning - which, no doubt, is the reason for the derailing problem.  Methinks it might be time to rewheel the tender in AG wheels.  The locomotive itself doesn't derail.  This may be due to its own weight letting it just plough on.  [Alisdair] 

[t-b-g]

13 minutes ago, ardbealach said:

By coincidence it so happened I was just running my Bachmann Crab on my 00 finescale layout when I has just read the note from t-b-g about the wheels on the Bachmann  Crab.  My own Bachmann Crab wasn't at all happy as well when it ran over the new Peco bullhead finescale points. 

 

My first step was, of course, to check the back to backs on the tender with a DOGA gauge.  And the gauge seemed to be correct, but the tender still persisted in climbing over the switch blade of the points when running in reverse tender first. 

 

So I eased the three wheelsets on the tender, moving them in to reduce the back to back centres of each by around 0.5mm.  I also weighted the tender with some lead weight.  It seems to run better now.  But I have also noted that the tender wheels do not appear to have any coning - which, no doubt, is the reason for the derailing problem.  Methinks it might be time to rewheel the tender in AG wheels.  The locomotive itself doesn't derail.  This may be due to its own weight letting it just plough on.  [Alisdair] 

 

I had forgotten the tender! That was grim and ours got new wheels. From memory, we pulled the Bachmann wheels off the axles and re-used the original axles with Gibson wheels fitted. There was no suitable extended flat ended axle with the Gibson wheels and it saved fitting bearings for a pin point. The centre axle would need a bit of play anyway to go round curves.

 

The tender behind some of the LMS 4-6-0 types had the same problem.

[Izzy]

I think it might be worth pointing out that a lot of loco wheels on RTR are fitted onto splined axles so the quartering doesn’t shift, but means you have to be very careful if you take them off in getting the splining aligned for quartering when re-fitting them. There is no roughly fitting and twisting to get correct quartering.

[Il Grifone]

Back to back gauges only work where all the wheels have the flange thickness the gauge was designed for. Thicker flanges will need a suitable reduction in back to back to ensure that the check gauge (B2B + flange thickness) remains constant.

[Jol Wilkinson]

On 11/12/2021 at 22:49, Lacathedrale said:

I've had alot of fun building my first P4 turnout, but I'm worried about the overhead of wheel (and sometimes chassis?) replacement on every otherwise perfectly fine RTR model to facilitate it in a layout context. Current and forthcoming RTR represents about half of the stock I wish to run on the layout - the Hattons Genesis and Hornby generic pre-group coaches and the two Bachmann LNWR locomotives: the coal tank and the forthcoming improved precedent.

 

I have heard that modern 00 wheels can often be eased out to a 16.5mm B2B, though It looks to me like the average DOGA Intermediate/RP25-110 wheel is 0.4mm wider than an EM wheel, 0.25mm of which is in the thickness of the flange. Given the 1mm EMGS flangeway, I don't suppose this would be a problem - but I have no meaningful experience.

 

Basically, if I have to re-wheel everything for EM or P4, I may as well go with P4 and at least have the satisfaction of really nice looking track, or 00 for the expedition of getting it done. However, if rolling stock and particularly those locomotives can just have their wheels eased out instead - that puts EM in a separate consideration. Any thoughts?

Going back to your OP, I don't think that RTR and P4 mix happily.

 

 RTR manufacturers have little interest in making their models convertible to P4. Their designs are firmly aimed at the OO market and any concession to fitting scale width wheels would compromise the strength they need to build in to withstand the sort of handling they might get. The limited availability of pre-group RTR models is a restriction when modelling that period and the LNWR is no exception.

 

However, I would also suggest that an issue with OO is the use of a consistent set of standards. When I was modelling the 1930s LMS in OO using kits and hand built track where possible, I couldn't consistently get my models to work well. I didn't understand about the need for consistent standards (and I think that applies to many modellers today) and they were rarely if ever mentioned in the main stream modelling press.

 

I gave up with OO and moved to modelling the LNWR in P4 and because it is automatic that you use the P4 standards, suppliers produce wheels, etc. to those standards and there are simple jigs and gauges that make construction straightforward I quickly started to achieve the sort of results I had longed for. Of course it was a given that you would build your own P4models - usually from kits - as the quality/accuracy of RTR at the time (30 years ago) was far short of what it is today.

 

I think the same benefits come with EM, provided you recognise the benefits of working fully to EMGS standards. It is possible to take some shortcuts with adjusting RTR wheel B2B spacing but this can sometimes be a false economy and fitting dedicated EM wheels is a better way to go.

 

So I would suggest going "fine scale OO"  changing wheels if necessary, if you intend sticking with the limited availability of LNWR RTR. If you want to extend you modelling beyond that then EM is the easier route but still needs more commitment.

[Izzy]

Having been involved in converting RTR to P4 since the early 1980’s I would just say that it is as much of a lottery today as it’s ever been, more so in some respects. I’ve never used EM, but the simple fact is that you basically need the same inside splasher clearance for either gauge, the narrower (recommended) width of P4 wheels generally offsetting the increased BTB over EM. Use RTR OO wheels which are mostly wider than either standard and you can soon run into trouble with insufficient room.
 

Converting diesels isn’t often such an issue, but steam can be, and even with the simpler inside cylinder types. This is because in recent times the drive to improve standards means there aren’t the grossly oversized splashers usually housing oversized wheels there used to be, (the old Airfix/now Hornby 4F is an example), but much closer to scale. Having converted a Hornby J15 & Oxford Rail N7 to P4 I found it impossible without much grinding away of the inside of the bodies to accommodate the wider wheels. I have read of some going through splasher sides trying to get enough room such are the tolerances. I very much doubt if LNWR RTR will be much different. 

 

 

[KeithHC]

I think the easy answer or should that be the simplistic answer…….. Try using the rtr wheels if it does not work then replace with suitable wheel sets.

 

Keith