OO vs EM vs P4 comparison photo

[Hal Nail]

On 25/05/2024 at 13:56, Porcy Mane said:

 

 

What are the little marks on the lids?

[whart57]

On 17/05/2024 at 00:22, Qweqwe said:

I've attached an example image of what I'm looking for but I believe this one shows OO and EM, but I'd like to see P4 in comparison too. Also the wheels are a little hard to see, I'd prefer if wheels are visible.

 

Anything is going to be an improvement over PECO Streamline 00, and nice detailing and weathering of locos is possible in all three gauges. As is correct rail height and profile. What this photograph shows is the difference between two modelling philosophies. On the left the commercial offering, available at the flash of a credit card. On the right the craftsman's take, results appearing after a lot of work. It's not a comparison of one track standard over another.

 

[Dunalastair]

9 hours ago, DCB said:

Might as well pin the rails direct to a ballast covered baseboard if that floats your boat

 

Perhaps we should reflect on where we have come from ...

 

 

But of course exposed sleepers are something of a modern phenomenon, along with bikinis and miniskirts. Back in the days of skirts being worn down to the ankle, sleepers were generally decently covered, and indeed rail was often of a lighter section.

 

https://www.theglasgowstory.com/image/?inum=TGSE00043

[Izzy]

I feel there are two comparisons that can be made with track and wheel standards. The first is in looks. The finer standards look, well finer, whether it’s the track or rolling stock wheels. How much the latter is actually visible depends greatly on the model involved and the viewing angle. 

But looks are only one aspect. The second, and the main one for me, is running quality in respect of wheel drop through pointwork. This is what I concentrate on personally, all else is very secondary as I just can’t abide it. 
 

So in 7mm it’s S7 or such as O-MF/SF to avoid it. S gauge. In 4mm only P4 works for me, perhaps the original EM that used to exist and TBG is using will also provide it, 18.2. doesn’t, well not in my hands. While in 2mm of course it’s 2FS that does the job. 
 

Each to their own I guess.

 

Bob

[Enterprisingwestern]

1 hour ago, Dunalastair said:

Perhaps we should reflect on where we have come from ...

 

 

, but it worked straight from the box!

 

Mike.

[Porcy Mane]

2 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

What are the little marks on the lids?

 

My own code for how much the contents have been thinned.

[whart57]

2 hours ago, Dunalastair said:

 

Perhaps we should reflect on where we have come from ...

 

 

and that was an improvement!

 

[Porcy Mane]

59 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

, but it worked straight from the box!

 Mine didn't.

 

Was always plagued with continuity problems on the living room floor. Maybe it was to do with the nylon pile or bri-nylon clothes that originated in Brentford.  I bet even you wore a bri-nylon short back in the day.

 

17 minutes ago, whart57 said:

and that was an improvement!

 

 

Now yer talking...

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

So in 7mm it’s S7 or such as O-MF/SF to avoid it. S gauge. In 4mm only P4 works for me, perhaps the original EM that used to exist and TBG is using will also provide it, 18.2. doesn’t, well not in my hands. While in 2mm of course it’s 2FS that does the job. 
 

Each to their own I guess.

 

Bob

I'd be interested to know if Tony (TBG) is getting any wheel drop on Buckingham because AFAIK it was Peter Denny who first went to 18.2 mm  for EM. I didn't notice any on Denny's Leighton Buzzard (GC) when Tony was exhibiting it.

[Pacific231G]

2 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

and that was an improvement!

 

 

Really ?

Frank Hornby's 0 gauge tinplate track was of course completely unprototypical- except that it wasn't !

He offered children (and adults) a portable railway using prefabricated track pieces that could be laid very quickly on any suitable surface (such as the playroom carpet) and changed equally quickly. 

Something like this in fact

 

 

But on a rather larger scale

Even Hornby's wagons looked rather familiar with their very short wheelbase and pizza cutter flanges.

 

These images are not though from Hornby but from Paul Decauville's 1890 catalogue. 

I've never seen real track in any context bearing the slightest resemblance to Tri-ang's first offering but, if you forget the  spurious main line markings Hornby tinplate system, both track, wagons and 0-4-0 locos, was clearly based very closely on the portable railway system invented by Paul Decauville - originally in 400 mm gauge- to get the beet harvest in on his own farm. It was soon to be found in almost every industrial and agricultural setting (and behind the trenches in WW1). There is of course good reason for this. Both could be laid on unprepared surfaces and laid and taken up very quickly without the need for any machinery to do so.

So, as a model of a main line railway Hornby tinplate (which was immensely successful) is nothing more than a crude toy but, as a model of a portable narrow gauge industrial/contractor's railway it's pretty close. It's all a matter of how you look at it.

[Qweqwe]

On 25/05/2024 at 20:17, johndon said:

Going back to the OP here are a couple of comparison shots of two SLW Class 24s one P4 and one EM on plain track...

 

 

 

John

 

 

Thank you thank you thank you!

This is exactly that I was after. Made my day, much appreciated!

Have a great day :)

[Qweqwe]

On 25/05/2024 at 21:00, Porcy Mane said:

 

I hope you're working?

 

Also returning to the OP. Hi res so folks can zoom in they feel the need.

 

 

It strikes me that there haven't been many pics of the real thing posted up for comparison.

 

Thank you for this!

I really appreciate the clear photos, super helpful.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

I'd be interested to know if Tony (TBG) is getting any wheel drop on Buckingham because AFAIK it was Peter Denny who first went to 18.2 mm  for EM. I didn't notice any on Denny's Leighton Buzzard (GC) when Tony was exhibiting it.

 

Yes, it will be connected to the tread width of the wheels used. The issue of wheel drop is directly connected to wheel tread width and has become more of a problem as the call/push for 'finer' looking wheels has resulted in narrow treads. What probably isn't understood is as the tread width is reduced so must the flangeways to retain the support for the wheel through crossings. This of course then means narrower flanges as well. It's all related and is why the 'fixed' standards I mentioned earliar work, the wheels standards match the track standards. Altering one without altering the other, as is often common in modelling, brings all kinds of problems unless the implications are fully understood. Those coarse 'steam roller' wheels of old were for a specific reason. They matched the coarse track standards.

 

Bob

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

I'd be interested to know if Tony (TBG) is getting any wheel drop on Buckingham because AFAIK it was Peter Denny who first went to 18.2 mm  for EM. I didn't notice any on Denny's Leighton Buzzard (GC) when Tony was exhibiting it.

 

You are quite right. We get no wheel drop on Buckingham despite the rather crude nature of the track and the big variety of wheel standards that run on it. On Buckingham, I think the reason is because the points are very short, which leads to a big angle at the crossing and hence a very short gap there.

 

Having said that, I have seen far too much good running in EM and in OO to say that the only way to avoid wheel drop is to go P4. Prior to my experience with working in 18mm, I have modelled in 18.2mm EM for over 40 years. Wheel drop has never been a problem. You don't see trains bumping through the points on layouts like Little Bytham or Alloa either and I have recently built some points for an extensive OO layout and we don't get wheel drop on that either.

 

There are all sorts of crossing angles and complex formations on the late Roy Jackson's Retford layout and the running on that, including playing silly beggars at scale speeds of 160 mph. never displays any wheel drop at all. 

[DCB]

On 25/05/2024 at 11:17, johndon said:

Going back to the OP here are a couple of comparison shots of two SLW Class 24s one P4 and one EM on plain track...

 

 

 

John

 

 

 

Interesting. I stared at the photos for ages trying to work out which was which and why the top photo jarred.
I finally twigged it.   The viewing angle is very forced.  The bottom one is better, holding the camera as high as possible  while standing on the platform across the end of the tracks angle.    I assume the P4 is on the left.
For me it's not a good comparison, the mass of hoses hide the wheels,  they could be Lima cookie cutters for all I can see ,    Where the fine scale scores over 2000 era RTR is on unfitted wagons and steam with carrying wheels,  where the wheels are prominent.
I found a couple of photos.  SDR Bogie bolster  compare that to Bachmann re the wheels and coupling  (Uggggh) 
Track spacing Toddington GWSR 2024.   Sleeper spacing  Aviemore Strathspey Rly 2024, looks like 3ft centres to me.
 

[Jeff Smith]

Just came across a couple of photos taken during assembly of a North London 4-4-0 in P4.  These show the fineness of the wheel width and flanges, and the track check rails and frog.  The short wheelbase bogie did not need compensation.

 

 

 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

I’d say that most photos of an LNER A1/A3 do a great job of showing the effect of the thickness of wheels, at least when the light shine partially on the front bogie wheels:

In the world of 4mm/ft scale modelling though, Exactoscale wheels at 1.85 mm for locomotive wheels (unfortunately no longer easily obtainable) and 1.67 for rolling stock will leave you with the perfect look of a heavy, powerful, refined machine on such thin, delicate looking wheels, which is one of the most important factors that goes into “the look” that is one of the main reasons why I love the railways of Britain.  With normal P4 wheels (which are usually slightly wider than scale at up to 2mm wide) and EM-F (2mm wide, but with an EM flange) will be acceptable, normal EM wheels will be tolerable, Markits/Romford wheels will cause minor to major frustration, and abominations like Hornby’s stock Gresley pacific bogie wheels will make you want to grab a hammer to deal with them (if trying to recreate a photo where the wheels are so visible like the examples or are like me).
  There is also the trackwork part of the look of railways, where we have S4X (exact scale standards) :

standard P4: 

(both examples of track by Tony Wilkins),  EM:

(cropped from a wide shot by https://emgauge70s.co.uk/model_omwb76.html), and Peco 00:

(a coloured drawing from Peco themselves).

 

What you may notice is that The difference between all of these is in the flangeways.  The flangeways of perfectly scaled track, EM-F and MMRS standard track is thinner than the thickness of the railhead, and everything else is increasingly wider, the width also impacting frog drop of wheels when mixing standards.  
 

If you go with a 00 standard involving such thin flangeways and using good detail in other places (right chairs, sleepers, etc), the result will be a pretty good compromise, and if not inspected by someone with excellent close up eyesight and a lot of experience in such field, than they probably will end up mistaking it for P4.  00-SF is somewhat such a standard where you can get (more than) half way to a fully realistic look without changing wheels, so that interoperability remains an option.  

If you’re fully considering any non course-scale 00 option, I would recommend considering Templot Plug Track, as while it is in its early stages, it should make building and designing trackwork many times easier and far quicker too by the looks of it!  
 

I hope you found at least some of this helpful.

 

Edited July 25 by 1471SirFrederickBanbury
forgot about EM-F and MMRS standards!

[Izzy]

I think what has to be taken into account when making comparison with bullhead track built to Finescale standards against RTL Peco OO is that the latter mostly uses flat bottom rail which has a narrower head than the bullhead, (although it should be the same width in model rail it rarely is, and often completely rounded in the past).
 

This tends to exacerbate the difference in the look of the flangeway gap when looked down from above. The use of it over bullhead does though have the advantage of preventing the ‘bottoming’ of overscale flanges compared with bullhead with regard to it’s inside jaws. It’s no doubt the reason why it has been used until now.

But the looks of either rail section are to my mind a side show to the main effect of producing better running qualities in the finer standards when decent/consistent track/wheel standards are used. 
 

Bob

[Captain Kernow]

6 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

00-SF is somewhat such a standard where you can get (more than) half way to a fully realistic look without changing wheels, so that interoperability remains an option.

I've said this many times before and I will continue to warn folk - beware OO-SF if you want to run a mix of RTR locos and stock. 

 

I know from personal experience that certain RTR locos really don't like the narrower gauge of 16.2mm and that's even before you get to the bits where there are check rails and crossings etc.

 

This is stock that has the B2B of 14.5mm, but features thicker than average flanges.

 

If you are only planning to run OO stock with the likes of Markits driving wheels, then OO-SF should work fine, but I will never, ever contemplate using it again.

 

 

[dj_crisp]

8 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I’d say that most photos of an LNER A1/A3 do a great job of showing the effect of the thickness of wheels, at least when the light shine partially on the front bogie wheels:

In the world of 4mm/ft scale modelling though, Exactoscale wheels at 1.85 mm for locomotive wheels (unfortunately no longer easily obtainable) and 1.67 for rolling stock will leave you with the perfect look of a heavy, powerful, refined machine on such thin, delicate looking wheels, which is one of the most important factors that goes into “the look” that is one of the main reasons why I love the railways of Britain.  With normal P4 wheels (which are usually slightly wider than scale at up to 2mm wide) and EM-F (2mm wide, but with an EM flange) will be acceptable, normal EM wheels will be tolerable, Markits/Romford wheels will cause minor to major frustration, and abominations like Hornby’s stock Gresley pacific bogie wheels will make you want to grab a hammer to deal with them (if trying to recreate a photo where the wheels are so visible like the examples or are like me).
  There is also the trackwork part of the look of railways, where we have S4X (exact scale standards) :

standard P4: 

(both examples of track by Tony Wilkins),  EM:

(cropped from a wide shot by https://emgauge70s.co.uk/model_omwb76.html), and Peco 00:

(a coloured drawing from Peco themselves).

 

What you may notice is that The difference between all of these is in the flangeways.  The flangeways of perfectly scaled track is thinner than the thickness of the railhead, and everything else is increasingly wider, the width also impacting frog drop of wheels when mixing standards.  
 

If you go with a 00 standard involving such thin flangeways and using good detail in other places (right chairs, sleepers, etc), the result will be a pretty good compromise, and if not inspected by someone with excellent close up eyesight and a lot of experience in such field, than they probably will end up mistaking it for P4.  00-SF is somewhat such a standard where you can get (more than) half way to a fully realistic look without changing wheels, so that interoperability remains an option.  

If you’re fully considering any non course-scale 00 option, I would recommend considering Templot Plug Track, as while it is in its early stages, it should make building and designing trackwork many times easier and far quicker too by the looks of it!  
 

I hope you found at least some of this helpful.

 

 

 

Some very interesting photos and observations! Like the last one of the steam locomotive which is clearly not bullhead track ;)  I do find the over-use of bullhead track on layouts more off putting than the gauge option tbh. The old flatbottom rail has been around for a long time!

 

Agree with the comment on OO-SF but also I think this extends to EM when trying to use RTR wheels pulled out. My opinion is choose your wheel profile then build the track to allow it to run in what-ever gauge is suitable.

 

Will 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

33 minutes ago, dj_crisp said:

I do find the over-use of bullhead track on layouts more off putting than the gauge option tbh. The old flatbottom rail has been around for a long time!

 

Hi Will,

 

You are making an assumption there about the period being modelled. For anyone modelling the steam era in BR days, only main running lines would be flat-bottom, and not all of them. For the typical model branch and secondary lines, stations, goods yards, engine sheds, carriage sidings, etc., the vast majority would still have been bullhead in steam days. A steam engine on flat-bottom track was not a common sight.

 

 

Martin.

Edited July 25 by martin_wynne
linked photo added

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

This is stock that has the B2B of 14.5mm, but features thicker than average flanges.

 

If you are only planning to run OO stock with the likes of Markits driving wheels, then OO-SF should work fine, but I will never, ever contemplate using it again.

 

The maximum back-to-back for RTR wheels is 14.4mm (for NMRA RP-25/110 wheels, which is what the far-east factories produce).

 

Setting them to 14.5mm requires the flange to be not more than 0.7mm thick. Otherwise they are not going to run too well on any track, not just 00-SF. Most RTR flanges are 0.8mm thick (RP-25/110).

 

The problem with 00-SF, as with much else, is that no-one reads the instructions. The intention of 00-SF is that it allows you to mix 00 RTR models with kit wheels (Markits, Gibson, Ultrascale) on the same track without bumpy running.

 

But if you use only RTR models it is better to use 00-BF or DOGA-Intermediate instead.

 

When using 00 RTR models on 00-SF it is advised to check wheelsets and adjust any which don't comply. The vast majority of modern 00 models do comply, but not all, and there is always the possibility of a rogue wheelset on any model. A great many folks are very happy with 00-SF, after reading the instructions, such as this:

 

 

 

Martin.

[dj_crisp]

23 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Will,

 

You are making an assumption there about the period being modelled. For anyone modelling the steam era in BR days, only main running lines would be flat-bottom, and not all of them. For the typical model branch and secondary lines, stations, goods yards, engine sheds, carriage sidings, etc., the vast majority would still have been bullhead in steam days. A steam engine on flat-bottom track was not a common sight.

 

 

Martin.

 

Thanks - I'm aware the last photo is more modern based on the clothing the people on the trackside.... it was a slight tongue in cheek comment. Basically my point is just laying bullhead and assuming because it's "finescale" that it's right even for the steam era is fraught with trip hazards. There's all sorts of photo's of steam locos running on flat bottom especially so in the 60s, and loads of lovely mix n match types. Like this rather splendid photo

 

 

Modelling flat bottom is harder mostly due to the lack of trade support or general interest.

 

 

 

 

[martin_wynne]

1 hour ago, dj_crisp said:

Agree with the comment on OO-SF but also I think this extends to EM when trying to use RTR wheels pulled out.

 

The usual mistake there is to pull them out too far. For RTR wheels on standard EM, the maximum back-to-back is 16.4mm. Don't use the usual EM 16.5mm back-to-back gauges with RTR wheels.

 

Martin.

[dj_crisp]

8 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The usual mistake there is to pull them out too far. For RTR wheels on standard EM, the maximum back-to-back is 16.4mm. Don't use the usual EM 16.5mm back-to-back gauges with RTR wheels.

 

Martin.

 

True - Random flange thickness of RTR is something I've found a big challenge.

 

Although Back to Back isn't my only consideration to not using RTR wheels. Not directly related to track is trying to fit a pulled out RTR wheel into anything RTR is more of a challenge than fitting a thinner wheel.... I 'm not a sophisticated modeller so try to keep things as simple as possible and have found that by only using wheels that are roughly RP25-88 in specification things run better for me. Some of the RTR wheels also seem a bit flat tired and don't appear to be that consistent with NMRA standards that to use them on anything other than standard OO is tricky. One of the many reasons OO-SF did not work for me and that I find EM easier.