Deciding on track and gauge

[Fiacra]

Hi folks,

I came back to the hobby a couple of years ago after a 30 year absence (yikes - where did the time go?!) and I've finally started exploring ideas for a new layout. For me, a layout is all about capturing an atmosphere rather than aiming for prototypical perfection, so I'm not necessarily hung up on the finest of details. However, I think trackwork can have a huge influence on atmosphere, and I do want to spend some time on this aspect of things. The layout will be set in the early 1990's, so I can just about get away with using bullhead track - which I find the most visually pleasing. So, code 75, bullhead is what I plan to go with. The next matter is gauge. Obviously, the further one diverges from 16.5 mm, the better the track can look, but the whole thing becomes more technically challenging. So, my goal is to find the sweet spot between  appearance and convenience. To that end, I've laid five pieces of track from assorted finescale suppliers and quickly ballasted them - photos attached. I would be very grateful for any opinions that board members might wish to offer as to which looks the most (or least) prototypical (again, stressing that atmosphere is my main objective). For now, all I'll say is that there is more than one gauge on display, and the sleepers come from more than one supplier. Also, I've painted all of the sleepers with the same flat brown, so as to remove colour from the equation. Thanks in advance for any input!

[Galteemore]

Good work. A or E I think 

[Irishswissernie]

Yes I too would go for A or E. Unfortunately I am too committed to ditch Peco code 100 and start again.

[David Holman]

Interesting!

The differences are subtle, but I concur with A or E. However, it is one thing to look down vertically on a piece of track, but what is the natural viewing angle?

 The closer that is to eye level, the less the differences in gauge will be apparent. Therefore rail height and sleeper spacing becomes more important. Suggest you take a few pictures from the likely viewing angle, then find some prototype pictures of the period you want to model and do a comparison.

 Certainly hope you find a good compromise - this seems like a very sensible way to go.

[jhb171achill]

E looks good to me.

[Sean]

E is the broadest looking, Theres a lot to be said about the sleeper arrangement on C also.

[Fiacra]

Thank you all for your input. It seems that A or E get the most votes, which was probably to be expected. 'A' is Peco EM gauge code 75 bullhead flexitrack (available from EMGS) while 'E' is code 75 bullhead rail threaded on to Exactoscale FastTrack P4 bases. 'B' is SMP Scaleway 00 gauge code 75 bullhead  flexitrack, 'C' is Peco code 75 bullhead flexitrack, and 'D' is code 75 bullhead rail threaded on to Exactoscale FastTrack 00 bases. I didn't include any 21 mm gauge as I've already ruled this out as an option - whereas EM and P4 are well catered for in terms of ready to lay (or almost ready to lay) plain track and pointwork, 21 mm would require everything to be built from scratch, and that feels like a step too far for me. 

Personally, I quite like the sleepers (spacing and thickness) on the Scaleway track ('B'). Having spent much of my youth hanging around the disused sidings of Liffey Junction during the 1980's (out of an interest in all things railway, not for any nefarious purposes - honest guv!), the Scaleway sleepers just look 'right' to me. I know some posters on the EMGS forum have pointed out that the Scaleway sleeper spacing is actually too close for prototypical British outline modelling, but perhaps there is/was a difference in sleeper spacing between Ireland and Britain? 

Scaleway also do an EM version of their flexitrack, and I think this is what I will go with. As David Holman pointed out above, the difference in gauge can be subtle, and a lot depends on the angle at which the track is being viewed, but I'm thinking EM is probably the best compromise for my purposes. Which leads to my next question; is there anybody out there modelling Irish railways in EM?

Thanks again to all.

[Galteemore]

I suppose there may have been a few who have done it, but as you’d have to rewheel all your stock anyway, why not just do 21mm from the start? Building track is not difficult really - esp if you make a few jigs. This is a panel of 5’3 track in 7mm scale that I knocked up within half an hour. Points a little more challenging but if you have a small layout (advisable in 21mm anyway) it may be feasible to get them professionally built by Marcway.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Galteemore

[murphaph]

Yeah I wouldn't rule 21mm out just yet if the alternative requires regauging the fleet anyway. If the layout is a "mixed prototype" designed to allow both Irish and British stock to run then I see the logic behind EM, but if it's purely for Irish stock and the layout isn't absolutely gigantic with lots of pointwork (plain flat bottomed track is genuinely very easy to build and quite prototypical for Ireland) then 21mm would be really worth a bit more consideration.

[David Holman]

Templot have files for Irish EM, which are 20.2mm gauge. 

Latest RTR stock is apparently easy to convert to 21mm gauge, but is all diesel outline. If that is your thing, then may be very worthwhile going for it. Steam outline much more involved, not that there is much available anyway.

 Setting yourself a challenge is always good, but needs to be manageable to succeed, so go with what you feel comfortable with and start small, so you can finish it in reasonable time.

[murphaph]

I don't think any tools exist for Irish EM. No back to back gauges, roller gauges etc. They would need to be custom made for such an endeavour.

With straight 21mm between the rails you can get most of these tools from the Scalefour society's stores, with the exception of a back to back gauge. I think they do an Irish gauge one but it's for P4 wheels so it's too wide to use for regauging typical 00 wheelsets.

John Mayne made a solid brass back to back up for me and EDM models have a nice 3d printed one which I also have. These work fine for regauging RTR wheels from IRM to "full" 21mm.

Sorry for diverting your thread Fiacra. It's your railway of course so whatever you decide is right at the end of the day.

 

[Fiacra]

1 hour ago, murphaph said:

I don't think any tools exist for Irish EM. No back to back gauges, roller gauges etc. They would need to be custom made for such an endeavour.

With straight 21mm between the rails you can get most of these tools from the Scalefour society's stores, with the exception of a back to back gauge. I think they do an Irish gauge one but it's for P4 wheels so it's too wide to use for regauging typical 00 wheelsets.

John Mayne made a solid brass back to back up for me and EDM models have a nice 3d printed one which I also have. These work fine for regauging RTR wheels from IRM to "full" 21mm.

Sorry for diverting your thread Fiacra. It's your railway of course so whatever you decide is right at the end of the day.

 

Not at all Phil - grateful for all input on the matter! I think there are two main issues putting me off going the 21 mm route, despite the layout being solely Irish outline - pointwork and re-gauging rolling stock. The planned layout will have around 18 points in total (including the fiddle yard), and building all that from scratch seems quite daunting - not just the actually construction, but doing it to a standard that ensures reliable running. With EM or P4, there are ready-to-lay or easily assembled turnout kits available on the market. On the re-gauging side of things, my understanding is that converting to EM is, usually, fairly straight forward. Sometimes it's possible to re-space wheels on their existing axel, but failing that, drop-in wheel sets are readily available - perhaps needing only a slight sanding of the inner side of the bogie to create sufficient space. With P4 and 21 mm gauges, considerably more re-building of bogies is required to accommodate the wider wheel sets. I know this is not an issue with the Murphy Models and IRM locos, which were designed to accept 21 mm wheel sets, but that doesn't seem to be the case for the MM MkIID and Cravens that I've procured. That being said, if the new run of MkIID will have wider bogies ready to accept 21 mm wheel sets, that could have an influence on the matter. Similarly, if IRM have any new coaching stock announcements coming up, that might also help sway my opinion  

[Mayner]

20 hours ago, Fiacra said:

 

Scaleway also do an EM version of their flexitrack, and I think this is what I will go with. As David Holman pointed out above, the difference in gauge can be subtle, and a lot depends on the angle at which the track is being viewed, but I'm thinking EM is probably the best compromise for my purposes. Which leads to my next question; is there anybody out there modelling Irish railways in EM?

Thanks again to all.

EM appears to be a reasonable compromise for Irish broad gauge and would allow Irish and British outline models to run on the same layout!

I know at least one (UK based) modeller who has an EM (18.2mm) gauge MGWR 2-4-0

Modelling Irish railways in EM is a similar compromise to modelling British outline in OO and reduces the "narrow gauge" appearance of Irish steam locos and stock when viewed head on, the main advantage in using EM over 21mm is that it considerably simplifies loco/rolling stock conversion with EM loco and rolling stock wheel sets available from the trade and EM gauge society and eliminates the requirement to widen/replace bogies and rolling stock chassis to accept 21mm wheel sets. A significant issue in converting Irish rtr (and some kits) coaches and wagons to 21mm gauge before the introduction of IRMs bogie freight stock.

Martyn Wynne's (Templot) choice of 20.2mm for "Irish EM" appears similar to the EM gauge society choice of 18.2mm as opposed to the more accurate 18.83mm for British outline standard gauge and may be related to concerns with achieving sufficient running clearances for EM profile wheels in broad gauge loco chassis.

Having built several steam outline 21mm gauge locos I would be tempted to try EM if I was starting over again.

 

[murphaph]

Let's just say this about bogies....

IRM produced 21mm friendly Y33 Sambre et Meuse bogies for the P42 project. They subsequently released these bogies for individual sale. There have been suggestions that IRM may well do the same for the upcoming BT bogies that will be required under the mk2's. IRM is well aware of a market for these to re-bogie the MM's Cravens and Mk2's. Even 00 modellers should consider upgrading the bogies to the proper scale width because the coaches look totally different with them fitted. They look much more "right". So it won't be just 21mm modellers that are in the market for proper scale width bogies, should IRM do the same again.

I am keeping my powder dry on doing surgery on those MM bogies for the above reason

The IRM and MM locos are all to my knowledge just as easy to regauge to 21mm as EM, with the slight exception of the Baby GMs which need a small bit of filling of the inside bogie faces if one wants to retain the factory wheels.

[Andy Cundick]

The trouble is EM still doesn't look right,i've got layouts in both EM and 21mmespecially when it comes to steamers where you have the wheels peeking out behind the splashers.AS for bogies just use the MJT bogies which can be readily built to 21mm gauge and use the side  frames off the original bogies as a cosmetic overlay.Andy.

[Fiacra]

23 minutes ago, Andy Cundick said:

The trouble is EM still doesn't look right,i've got layouts in both EM and 21mmespecially when it comes to steamers where you have the wheels peeking out behind the splashers.AS for bogies just use the MJT bogies which can be readily built to 21mm gauge and use the side  frames off the original bogies as a cosmetic overlay.Andy.

Thanks for that suggestion Andy. I wasn't aware of the MJT bogies, but just checked them out and they don't seem overly complicated to construct. I take your point on EM still not looking right - I suppose I would be settling for something that looks 'less wrong' than 16.5 mm. However, those bogies are now making me consider going P4 instead of EM, which would look less wrong again   I know it might seem pointless to go to all the effort of P4 conversions rather than going to the full 21 mm, but the matter of pointwork construction for the latter still terrifies me!

[murphaph]

P4 is a lot more involved Fiacra. Your track needs to be absolutely perfect and even then, you'll probably need compensation on at least some of your stock or it will derail.

If you follow Andy's MJT brass bogie suggestion, I would advise against butchering the MM bogies for their side frames because you can buy new cosmetic bogie sides from Replica Railways for like a pound a pair of something very small. Then you can always put the MM bogies back on and sell as 00 if you change era, scale, leave the hobby etc. 

If point work construction terrifies you then just buy the few bits you need to build a couple of them and just dive in. Only then can you really know if it's beyond your skillset (which I very much doubt). The nice thing is, sleepers are 8'6" in GB and Ireland so you can reuse any materials in EM should you decide not to go with 21mm. You could use these homemade points in your fiddle yard or whatever.

[Andy Cundick]

6 hours ago, Fiacra said:

Thanks for that suggestion Andy. I wasn't aware of the MJT bogies, but just checked them out and they don't seem overly complicated to construct. I take your point on EM still not looking right - I suppose I would be settling for something that looks 'less wrong' than 16.5 mm. However, those bogies are now making me consider going P4 instead of EM, which would look less wrong again   I know it might seem pointless to go to all the effort of P4 conversions rather than going to the full 21 mm, but the matter of pointwork construction for the latter still terrifies me!

The point(pardon the pun) with trackwork and points especially is they look daunting until you have a go,Trackwork  scared the crap out of me but i was determined to go down the 21mm route  so bought an SMP point kit blew the  plan up to 21mm gauge and had a go much to my surprise it worked,the second one was pants as was getting cocky.Quite agree with Phil about P4  much more work involved as its that more precise bear in mind the wheels dont have flanges just burrs.One point if you stick to EM the EM Gauge Society commissioned PECO to do basic flexi track and a couple of B6 points.I used it on my North British layout and jolly fine it is too.Andy.

[Galteemore]

Yep, give it a go and make up a small panel to start with. Once you have that magic 5’3” staring you in the face you won’t look back….still got the trial panel I made up years ago with card sleepers and some scrap code 100

Edited August 10, 2022 by Galteemore

[David Holman]

I work in 7mm scale, both 36.75mm and 21mm gauge. With the latter, I use ordinary (4mm scale) 1mm flanges clearances, which are a lot more forgiving than P4 tolerances. A standard point takes less than an hour to make and once you've done one, the  next seem a lot less daunting.

[Fiacra]

Having thought about the pros and cons of 21 mm a bit more, I've decided to have a go at constructing a short length of 21 mm track and a couple of points, just to see what it entails - and I'll convert a 121 to run on it. Before that though, I thought I would ease into the whole conversion experience by first converting the 121 to EM and running it on some Peco EM bullhead track and a couple of kit-built EM points. And so I've arrived at my first bump in the road.......

The attached photo shows a bogie on the 121 with the left wheel set re-gauged to EM (on original axle), while the right wheel set has not yet been re-gauged. What I've noticed is that there is now quite a bit of side-to-side play in the re-gauged wheel set due to the increased space between the wheels and the brass(?) rings that hold the axle in the gear block. This isn't an issue on the 16.5 mm wheel set because the wheels are tighter to the brass rings and this limits the side-to-side movement. Brass rings (whatever they're actually called) with a longer cylinder would seem to be the obvious solution - or some type of spacer that can be put on the axle between the wheel and the brass ring. Does anybody know if such items are readily available? 

Another thing I noticed is that when the wheels are spaced for 21 mm gauge on the original axle, the outside face of the wheel is almost flush with the end of the axle. This leaves no room at the end of the axle for the rotating hubcap to slide on to it. Has anybody found a way around this?

As always, thanks for any input!

[murphaph]

Longer top hat bushings are available I'm sure. As for the rotating axle boxes....not sure, how deep are they? Could they be sanded thinner?

[Brendan8056]

Well done on making the move nearer to the proper gauge! Here is a link to a couple of articles in "New Irish Lines" about 21mm gauge diesel locos, including the 121 class. It is well worth subscribing to this magazine if you model Irish railways.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d86eqxk57ajch81/New Irish Lines Vol. 9 No. 3 - 2021 May.pdf?dl=0

I was rather brutal with my 121 rotating hubs, to get clearance. When shortened I carefully glued them in place so they are now fixed. You have to have very good eyesight to see them rotate at normal viewing distance. I have had no problem with the extending of the wheels to the axle ends, the excess play does not seem to cause any problems.

[Fiacra]

47 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Longer top hat bushings are available I'm sure. As for the rotating axle boxes....not sure, how deep are they? Could they be sanded thinner?

Bushings! Now that I know what they're actually called, I can search for them - thanks Phil.

 

31 minutes ago, Brendan8056 said:

Well done on making the move nearer to the proper gauge! Here is a link to a couple of articles in "New Irish Lines" about 21mm gauge diesel locos, including the 121 class. It is well worth subscribing to this magazine if you model Irish railways.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d86eqxk57ajch81/New Irish Lines Vol. 9 No. 3 - 2021 May.pdf?dl=0

I was rather brutal with my 121 rotating hubs, to get clearance. When shortened I carefully glued them in place so they are now fixed. You have to have very good eyesight to see them rotate at normal viewing distance. I have had no problem with the extending of the wheels to the axle ends, the excess play does not seem to cause any problems.

Thanks for this info Brendan - will definitely check out the articles in New Irish Lines. It did occur to me that the hubs could be trimmed and glued in place, but that seems such a shame when they were designed to rotate. Alas, it might be the only option. Regarding the side-to-side play, it's probably not so pronounced with 21 mm as the wheels are pushed out close to the bogie frame, which (together with the glued hubs) would presumably limit the side-to-side movement? I'll have a look around for longer bushings, as suggested by Phil, but otherwise it might actually be easier to bypass the EM trials and go straight to 21 mm!

[Horsetan]

On 8/8/2022 at 5:12 PM, Fiacra said:

Hi folks,

I came back to the hobby a couple of years ago after a 30 year absence (yikes - where did the time go?!) and I've finally started exploring ideas for a new layout. For me, a layout is all about capturing an atmosphere rather than aiming for prototypical perfection, so I'm not necessarily hung up on the finest of details. However, I think trackwork can have a huge influence on atmosphere, and I do want to spend some time on this aspect of things. The layout will be set in the early 1990's, so I can just about get away with using bullhead track - which I find the most visually pleasing. So, code 75, bullhead is what I plan to go with. The next matter is gauge. Obviously, the further one diverges from 16.5 mm, the better the track can look, but the whole thing becomes more technically challenging. So, my goal is to find the sweet spot between  appearance and convenience. To that end, I've laid five pieces of track from assorted finescale suppliers and quickly ballasted them - photos attached. I would be very grateful for any opinions that board members might wish to offer as to which looks the most (or least) prototypical (again, stressing that atmosphere is my main objective). For now, all I'll say is that there is more than one gauge on display, and the sleepers come from more than one supplier. Also, I've painted all of the sleepers with the same flat brown, so as to remove colour from the equation. Thanks in advance for any input!

One thing I would say about the appearance of Irish gauge track is that, outside the city/suburban areas, rail often looks quite corroded, so you'll need a decent orange/brown mix.

As for gauge, my view is that it should be 21mm if you're lucky enough to be starting from scratch. 5'3" is simply too wide for anything else to look correct.

[Dave Dawes]

On 9/8/2022 at 2:08 PM, Fiacra said:

Thank you all for your input. It seems that A or E get the most votes, which was probably to be expected. 'A' is Peco EM gauge code 75 bullhead flexitrack (available from EMGS) while 'E' is code 75 bullhead rail threaded on to Exactoscale FastTrack P4 bases. 'B' is SMP Scaleway 00 gauge code 75 bullhead  flexitrack, 'C' is Peco code 75 bullhead flexitrack, and 'D' is code 75 bullhead rail threaded on to Exactoscale FastTrack 00 bases. I didn't include any 21 mm gauge as I've already ruled this out as an option - whereas EM and P4 are well catered for in terms of ready to lay (or almost ready to lay) plain track and pointwork, 21 mm would require everything to be built from scratch, and that feels like a step too far for me. 

Personally, I quite like the sleepers (spacing and thickness) on the Scaleway track ('B'). Having spent much of my youth hanging around the disused sidings of Liffey Junction during the 1980's (out of an interest in all things railway, not for any nefarious purposes - honest guv!), the Scaleway sleepers just look 'right' to me. I know some posters on the EMGS forum have pointed out that the Scaleway sleeper spacing is actually too close for prototypical British outline modelling, but perhaps there is/was a difference in sleeper spacing between Ireland and Britain? 

Scaleway also do an EM version of their flexitrack, and I think this is what I will go with. As David Holman pointed out above, the difference in gauge can be subtle, and a lot depends on the angle at which the track is being viewed, but I'm thinking EM is probably the best compromise for my purposes. Which leads to my next question; is there anybody out there modelling Irish railways in EM?

Thanks again to all.

Hi . I'm new here but was thinking of EM for my new Irish layout and joining the EM society 

[Blaine]

3 hours ago, Dave Dawes said:

Hi . I'm new here but was thinking of EM for my new Irish layout and joining the EM society 

If you modelled the layout in 1/87 (HO) scale, EM is bang on for 1600mm / 5'3 gauge.

[murphaph]

1 minute ago, Blaine said:

If you modelled the layout in 1/87 (HO) scale, EM is bang on for 1600mm / 5'3 gauge.

I don't get ya? I presume he doesn't want to scratch build all his rolling stock. That's not what you mean, is it?

[Blaine]

29 minutes ago, murphaph said:

I don't get ya? I presume he doesn't want to scratch build all his rolling stock. That's not what you mean, is it?

HO theres loads of work needed, but for 00 / 21mm a bit less

[Dave Dawes]

18.2 EM gives me a better width over 16.5. I still want to use RTR stock and locos with a small mount of conversion on wheel sets/bogies . Also EM gives me a good choice for track including point work. 

Thanks everyone for your input 

[David Holman]

Templot do track plans for 20.2mm, which they call "Irish EM". Flangways are the usual 1mm, for 00 finescale. On Fintonagh, I've used these standards without problems.

[Noel]

On 8/8/2022 at 5:12 PM, Fiacra said:

Hi folks,

I came back to the hobby a couple of years ago after a 30 year absence (yikes - where did the time go?!) and I've finally started exploring ideas for a new layout. For me, a layout is all about capturing an atmosphere rather than aiming for prototypical perfection, so I'm not necessarily hung up on the finest of details. However, I think trackwork can have a huge influence on atmosphere, and I do want to spend some time on this aspect of things. The layout will be set in the early 1990's, so I can just about get away with using bullhead track - which I find the most visually pleasing. So, code 75, bullhead is what I plan to go with. The next matter is gauge. Obviously, the further one diverges from 16.5 mm, the better the track can look, but the whole thing becomes more technically challenging. So, my goal is to find the sweet spot between  appearance and convenience. To that end, I've laid five pieces of track from assorted finescale suppliers and quickly ballasted them - photos attached. I would be very grateful for any opinions that board members might wish to offer as to which looks the most (or least) prototypical (again, stressing that atmosphere is my main objective). For now, all I'll say is that there is more than one gauge on display, and the sleepers come from more than one supplier. Also, I've painted all of the sleepers with the same flat brown, so as to remove colour from the equation. Thanks in advance for any input!

A&E got my vote. I'm a bit lazy and lack the skills to build fault free 21mm track so modified existing Irish Models could run on it. Also decided I wasn't keen on re-guaging  my stock, and the work involved with risk I would end up with fault free running afterwards as well as lack of interoperability on other layouts. So I was boring and went for the safe option of Peco Code 75 for Gort and with poetic license and ballasting seem to have got away with the general feel of the place. I still wonder about a 21mm diorama some day!  

Edited November 19, 2022 by Noel

[David Holman]

Yep, everything is a compromise - even P4, so you just have to go with what you feel most comfortable with. Ultimately, pics like the one above show there are many other aspects which, if got right, really make model railway sing.

[NIRCLASS80]

I used Peco Bullhead code 75 on Ballyercall.