21mm gauge track; the pros and cons?

[murphaph]

I'm going to start ordering stuff to get a start on this. I managed to find a copy of Iain Rice's pragmatic PCB track book. I think this is the perfect method for me (he said with absolutely no experience) for most of my planned layout.

I'm thinking for a mid 90s Limerick Junction layout I can use FB rail on PCB with heavy ballasting to represent the CWR of the mainline.

I would start with that as I believe it's easier.

So, I need to know would I need 8'6" or 9' concrete sleepers for the mainline CWR in this area?

What code of FB rail is most appropriate to represent the weight of rail used here?

I really want to settle on the spec (not just gauge) and I'm confused. I don't want to build to an arbitrary gauge that "works for me" but excludes the possibility of guest stock running on my layout. Is there a documented spec anywhere?

I do not want to model to P4 standards. I can't be bothered with compensation etc. The chosen spec needs to allow reliable running without compensation. Does this only leave the "Irish EM" spec (20.2mm)? Or is there another spec that retains the 21mm but without the tightness of P4?

 

[Colin R]

Hi the understanding is this build the track to 21mm Back to Back so it is scale but then use EM standards for check rails etc.

You can join the EM society and they can supply the track standard on a CD disc for you, or you can download them once you are a member, 5ft 3ins gauge concrete sleepers may be a problem.

As a suggestion it might be worth buying a single length of Peco standard gauge concrete sleeper track with the right size rail, strip the rail carefully from the sleeper base and then once the PCB sleeper have been isolated from each side super glue the Peco sleepers on to the base.

I suggest you cut them just outside of the pandrol clip and glue the two ends on the outside of the track, the concrete section in the middle you will have to play around with until it looks right.

If that is too much faffing about for you, you might like to try just painting the PCB with a dirty concrete paint mix, at 2ft you will not notice just how accurate you have made them, if you plan to fill the space between with ballast.

This is only a suggest for you to think about.

 

Colin

[Mayner]

Attempting Limerick Junction would be a massive undertaking for an individual particularly in 21mm gauge where it is necessary to hand lay track and re-gauge rolling stock.

I am not aware of a published standard or spec sheet for 21mm gauge though some work may have been carried out by members of the S4 Society. 

Its simple enough to work out critical dimensions such as back to back gauge, flangeway width and check gauge using information in standards published by the EM and Double O Gauge Association http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/

An ambitious layout like Limerick Junction would be more likely to succeed as a club or a team project similar to Tiny Miles Advaoyle or Roy Jackson's Retford.

I don't know if anyone actually works to the 20.2mm gauge "Irish EM: advocated by Martin Wynne the developer of Templot.

Successful 21mm gauge layouts have been built to S4 (Adavoyle, Belturbet (South Dublin MRC) EM Loughrea (Model Railway Society of Ireland) Valencia Harbour, & Courtmacsharry (Andy Cundick).

A number of modellers appear to work to 21mm gauge using OO/HO gauge running clearances with a back to back gauge (B-B) of 19mm.

Adapting OO/HO running clearances for a large or complex layout would have the advantage of:

1. allowing smaller radius curves than achievable using an EM or S4 running clearances

2. re-gauging the majority of locos and rolling stock by simply pushing out the existing NMRA 110 wheels to the correct back to back gauge, while re-wheeling may be necessary in EM and essential in S4.

Martin Wynne may have advocated the narrower 20.2mm gauge to overcome potential problems with running clearances particularly with steam outline locos and vehicles with long rigid chassis which may be less of an issue with diesel locos, though the existing NMRA 110 wheels will foul the bogie sideframes on a Murphy Models 141 or 181 diesel if the wheels are pushed out to a B-B or 19.3

Irish railway companies have used 8'6" wooden sleepers since the  production of 9' sleepers was phased out during WW1.

CIE & IE used a combination of 85. 90 and 95lb flatbottom rail on jointed track until replaced by CWR. There was not much to choose visually between the different weights Code 75 would be a reasonable approximation. 

Irish Rail use a standard gauge concrete sleeper with the rail fixings moved out to the wider gauge which makes the track look even wider when viewed head on. I don't know if anyone produces a suitable 4mm concrete sleeper.

C&L Finescale produced a "Domac" concrete sleeper which was used with bullhead track in the UK https://www.clfinescale.co.uk/examiningproductrange?lightbox=dataItem-jqnj45rr.

CIE used similar concrete sleepers without the Domac branding with jointed bullhead track including the Mallow-Tralee line until replaced by CWR during the 1990s.

Landlaid track is still popular on American layouts even "basement empires" using stripwood ties (sleepers) with the rail spiked down to every 4-5th sleeper. 

I am planning to adapt this approach for my next layout, possibly substituting a copperclad sleeper for every 5th wooden tie if I run into problems spiking the track.

 

 

[murphaph]

Thanks very much folks and also to those who reached out via PM. It's much appreciated. Interestingly I was sitting on a spec of sorts all along. In the appendices of "Modelling Irish Railways" there is a table of three specs, adapted to 21mm gauge (OO, EM and P4). I never noticed this before.

The EMGS one looks very close to yours John. The only difference being:

WCG: 19.95mm (JM) vs 20.05mm EMGS Manual

Otherwise they appear identical and what's 0.1mm between friends (probably a lot here lol)

I don't want to scan the page in as it's copyrighted. 

I'm glad we touched a bit on OO standards for 21mm. I had almost not considered the idea or had considered it but didn't realises I was doing so (by hoping to just push the existing wheels on many of my models onto new 28mm axles.

What is the disadvantage of OO 21mm compared with EMGS 21mm, apart from the look of the wider tyres of the NMRA 110 wheels?

I know that LJ is a big undertaking for sure, but it is not planned to be done very quickly. I will try to do it in modules so I can enjoy running some stuff as I go. I will start with the long straights away from the station area to get practice in. However it will take several years to complete. I just don't want to look back and regret not doing it in the correct scale track gauge later. 

Who knows, maybe IRM will release 21mm flextrack and simple points to take the heavy lifting out of much of it.

Just a quick note on the concrete sleepers. I was hoping to simply use copper clad strips for the whole layout and then "over" ballast the "CWR" sections as often seemed to be the case in Ireland, almost submerging the sleepers out of view, then in station areas lightly ballast so it looks like timbers with spiked FB rail. I think at 4mm scale the spikes would be invisible at 2' anyway so no need to really do anything by way of rail fixings 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by murphaph

[Robert Shrives]

IRM or ? will naturally release  RTR / made easy 21mm track as your model is featured in a magazine! 

Robert .

 

[Warbonnet]

19 minutes ago, murphaph said:

 

Who knows, maybe IRM will release 21mm flextrack and simple points to take the heavy lifting out of much of it.

 

Absolutely no chance, ever. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it makes absolutely zero commercial sense. Best of luck with it though! 

[RobertRoche]

50 minutes ago, murphaph said:

I was hoping to simply use copper clad strips for the whole layout and then "over" ballast the "CWR" sections as often seemed to be the case in Ireland, almost submerging the sleepers out of view, then in station areas lightly ballast so it looks like timbers with spiked FB rail.

You may be able to etch a wood pattern into the copper clad sleepers - if you want to go to that extra effort.

[murphaph]

35 minutes ago, Warbonnet said:

Absolutely no chance, ever. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it makes absolutely zero commercial sense. Best of luck with it though! 

Thanks for the confirmation all the same, odd as that may sound! I actually makes it easier just to plough on ahead without wondering "what if IRM do decide to release 21mm track next year". I guess Stephen's poll on the matter threw me a bit

 

[murphaph]

8 minutes ago, RobertRoche said:

You may be able to etch a wood pattern into the copper clad sleepers - if you want to go to that extra effort.

Rice recommends simply scratching the sleepers lengthways with a rough grit sandpaper to get a "grain", but IIRC says it's really not required. Again, at 2' in 4mm scale I can't believe you'd see the grain of old station area sleepers. I remember reading somewhere once that in reality wooden sleepers don't even look like wood after a short while in service. They get bleached by the sun and covered in oil and can be any colour from black to light grey.

[Galteemore]

Simple palette of dull paints worked for me when I made 5’3” PCB track last year - this is the semi-abandoned quay siding so deliberately shabby and decidedly decrepit ....

Edited January 7, 2021 by Galteemore

[David Holman]

 There are a few things to consider with track beyond getting the gauge right. As Galteemore shows, ballasting and weathering make a huge difference, but choose you rail carefully too. Am fairly sure Rosses Point uses Code 100 flat bottomed rail, same as Belmullet, whereas the norm in 7mms scale is Code 124. Years ago, did an 0 gauge light railway with Code 100 track and got asked several times at shows if it was broad gauge, so just goes to show the effect of finer rail.

 Indeed, Peco 75 makes a big difference compared to 100. - though the improved sleeper spacing help too. Overall, for standard gauge, never mind broad gauge, Peco 100 is probably the least good option, followed by their 75, then the likes of EM and P4. For those who are too committed to 00, or just happy with the compromise, reducing the viewing angle helps a lot, as does careful ballasting and painting the rails and track the right colours. Things anyone should be able to do and probably a key step in turning a train set into a model railway.

 It remains however down to the individual and as long as you enjoy it, that is all that matters. No prizes for guessing where my own preferences lie of course!

[murphaph]

Hi David. I was considering Peco code 75 FB as that's available locally here in Germany. Would you advise against it?

[Edo]

Hi Murph 

Heres a few photos of peco code 100 and code 75 side by side and piece of transition track ( from 75  to 100) to join them. As much as i'd love to go down 21mm route and make my own track ala David H, GM , JM et al....im just not at that level of modelling proficiency yet and i'd like to get something built in the near future....so im building a layout using code 100 in the fiddle yard and non scenic areas and code 75 in the scenic areas.....all modelling is about compromise to some degree - all comes down to the resources, skills and time you have or have not to spend....

[Noel]

Code 75 when well ballasted can look well and less like narrow gauge than code 100 usually does. Ironically some of the IRM stock with scale width wider bogies highlights how off 16.5mm track can look.

[murphaph]

Thanks guys. Yeah the correct width bogies especially highlight how off the H0 track gauge is. 

What's the consensus on replacement bogies on Murphy Models coaching stock by the way? I found an old thread in which MJT compensated ones were recommended but another on rmweb in which they were criticised.

[Mayner]

OO vs EM/S4 running clearances.

The main advantage in adapting OO based running clearances is that it:

1. Allows NMRA 110 profile wheels fitted to the majority of rtr stock to be re-used.

2. Permits smaller radius curves than recommended for EM or S4 due to the additional built in running clearance with 19mm Vs 19.3-5mm B-B using  EMF standards.

3. The wider NMRA 110 wheel tyres provide some additional leeway for less than perfect tracklaying.

Cons:

1.The need to reduce the width of the gauge or increase the width of the model (beyond scale) to achieve sufficient running clearance for some models particularly steam outline locos. The same issue applies to a lesser extent using EM running clearances.

2. Appearance coarser wheels, wider flangeway gaps at crossings and switches.

3. Less steady running than EM or S4 due to increased running tolerances.

Bogies

I have re-gauged coaches to 21mm gauge simply by widening the existing plastic bogies in addition to more complex methods.

Cheap and cheerful Hornby coach bogie widened with strip of plasticard, these were used to re-gauge a pair of Hornby Stanier coaches as a stop gap measure until I built more accurate stock.

The plasticard bolster provides a similar degree of resilience to a compensated or torsion bar bogie system.

Wheels re-gauged by cutting and sleeving axle with 2mm bore brass tube.

21mm bogie with MJT cast whitemetal bogie sideframes and MJT "Torsion Bar" bogie on Ultrascale wheels.

1mm plasticard packers were used to pack the bogie sideframes out to 26mm

These were used under a number of Worsley Works coaches including a Park Royal and a Laminate

21mm gauge rigid bogie frames for B4 bogies intended for use with MJT B4 whitemetal bogie sideframes.

I produced these for re-gauging my MM Cravens about 6 months ago but its currently a low priority project

[murphaph]

John, a couple of questions if I may...

What are the black dots at the end of the plastikard "torsion bar" stretcher? Some sort or rivet? Or how is it held on to the severed half of the plastic bogie?

Also, the brass etches you've made yourself, can the MJT ones be used instead?

Is there a reason why you didn't split the original MM Cravens bogies and regauge those using plastikard?

I've also read something about Bill Bedford bogies. Any information on those wrt 21mm?

I'm thinking I may go the "middle way" and use the 21mm EM. I like the idea of 00 tolerances on my diesel stock but what if I want to add a kit built steam loco or two later on and I've built a helix to a too tight radius for any slightly longer steam engine to get around. I'm thinking it would be safer to bite the bullet now and re-wheel my RTR stock with EM profile wheels and accept that I need larger curve radii on Helixes and curves in general.

Cheers,

Phil

[David Holman]

Makes sense to me Phil. 

If you really want the gauge to look right, then Irish EM is a sensible compromise. Yes, P4 has been shown to work well in 'standard' gauge, but it is arguable that it took many years to get there and many exhibition visitors will attest to the fact that layouts that ran well in the early days were pretty rare in P4.

 There are many more aids available now, especially through the Society, but the facts remain that an extra degree of skill is required to make P4 work compared to EM. Some may disagree with this and I'll be the first to apologise if I'm wrong!

 My own experience is that I started off in EM, with no prior experience, and was able to build an effective exhibition layout having only basic tools and no prior workshop skills whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of doing Irish EM for me is that wagons, coaches and especially RTR diesels are fairly easy to adapt. Yes, track has to be hand made, but even then, C&L do point kits, with ready made crossing vees and machined point blades. While neither of which are that difficult to make, if you've not done it before, then a kit is a great way to learn, not least because there are instructions to follow. The key component is of course the track gauge, so finding someone to do a suitable roller gauge is essential. After that, there is nothing that should deter an enthusiastic beginner.

 A final thought, which I read somewhere recently is that when you buy something, you are the owner, but when you make something you become a creator and I rather like that!

[Brendan8056]

I too did some etches many years back, originally for use with Lima sideframes. I converted a Murphys Cravens, but tried to keep the close couple mechanism, which meant I used smaller wheels to keep the ride height correct whilst resung the bolster. I would not use the same method again.

The bogie is on a bit of 21mm gauge track. The concrete sleepers are C&L with Peco code 75 FB track and pandrol fittings.

[murphaph]

Thanks for your further feedback guys.

I've had some feedback from the S4 society (I emailed both societies to see what sort of stores items they have for 21mm) and as a result of that I've joined that society. I may also join the EMGS, depending on what they say, if and when they respond to my enquiry.

The S4 society has the following stores items (only) relevant to 21mm. They have plenty of other stuff like consumables that can be used by 21mm modellers as well of course:

Track gauge, Type 'A', Rollergauge - 5' 3" Gauge (21 mm)
Track gauge, triangular, for automatic gauge widening - 5' 3" gauge (21 mm)
Roger Sander's 'Mint' gauge for fine tuning pointwork - 5' 3" gauge (21 mm)
28mm pin-point Axle, suitable for Irish Prototype, intended for coach and wagon wheels
Brook Smith wheel back-to-back gauge, boxed, for 5' 3" gauge

I think most of those can be of use even on an EM layout, certainly items 1,2,4 are of use and I may be able to get someone to take a bit off the BB gauge to bring it in to 19.3mm if the EM society don't have one. I know I can use a vernier here but a proper BB gauge seems like it might also make getting the wheels on square that bit easier?

Brendan, when you say you wouldn't use the same method again, why is that? How would you regauge a Craven now, given your experiences? I have a lot of Cravens to regauge but little steps!

[Mayner]

Your potentially looking at a minimum main line radius of between 2'6"-3' if you adapt EM standards. 

I built a 2'6" radius 21mm circular test track in the MRSI clubroom about 20 years ago, the main issue was that you could get dizzy watching the trains run round the circle.

I don't think the EM Gauge Society produce anything specific for 21mm gauge, I simply blow up the Society track templates to 21mm gauge for my own use.

The black dots on plasticard stretcher bars are 10BA brass bolts, I bolted the side frames to the stretchers as I was not sure a superglued glued joint would be reliable. The bogie pivots were simply superglued to the stretcher and there have been no problems with the glued joints.

I tend to use etched brass W irons or bogie frames for most of my rolling stock as it largely eliminates axle alignment problems that arise during traditional scratchbuilding or while assembling a kit.

I tend to use compensation in steam and small diesel loco chassis as it provides more reliable power pick up than  a hand assembled rigid chassis, a lot of my wagons and coaches have compensated chassis but its less critical with shortwheel based stock and not really necessary with rtr rolling stock with dies cast or plastic injection moulded chassis.

I basically came to the conclusion that it would be simpler to replace the MM Craven bogies completely rather than to attempt to re-gauge the existing bogies. 

[Brendan8056]

Mayner is probably correct about the Murphy's bogies (on both the Cravens and AC stock). Using the brass bogie etch and existing centre casting to secure bogie to coach leave too big a gap. Replica Railways do some very nice plastic B4 and B5 bogie kits, and also sell the sideframes seperately, for a bargain price of 4 for £1. You could probably make up your own plasticard bolsters to go with these.

The etched bogies have worked well on Lima mk1 steam generator conversions and should also work on mk2 or 3 coaches by Lima. 

   

[murphaph]

I can live with 2'6" radius helixes and curves I think. My space is a rectangular room exactly 9.5m x 3.12m (bit over 31' x 10') with a door exactly centred along one of the long walls and window sill height is 1.45m (it's a basement room, windows are up near the ceiling). I will need to cleverly plan access to the helix in case of derailments. I think I will have to just have one helix with a lift out bridge or bridges across the door. Originally I had planned two helixes but I think they would completely dominate the room at 5' diameter. I may need to scale back my original plans to accommodate 21mm but I'm happy to do that. The gauge is more important to me than the length of track I can get into the room.

[David Holman]

31x10? Sounds wonderful! Enjoy!

[murphaph]

Thx David. Many years of construction ahead of me though!

[Colin R]

Can I make a suggestion, break the bigger project down into smaller workable sections and treat each project as an end to itself, it will keep you focused and the big picture won't look so daunting once you have say 5 or 6 mini projects completed.

CJ Freezer always said get one basic loop working and then work out from that, at least then you can sit down and drink your coffee while the trains are moving.

The advantage of this is you do not have to build all the point work to start with to get the layout operational; you only need to build those points which form part of the first main line circuit.

Hope this advice helps

[David Holman]

Good advice! Alternatively, depending very much on the overall plan, consider building a specific section like a branch terminus, then gradually add other sections as you go along.

 Cyril had some great ideas for track plans, though if your preference is more for freight traffic, look at Iain Rice's diagrams. Cyril preferred passenger traffic on most of his and was happy with tight curves too.

[Andy Cundick]

It might be worth finding a prototype station or track plan which interests you and start with that,it needn't be complex you just need to something running.You can't get much simpler than Valencia but it was up and running quickly and taught me a lot,you don't have to stick rigidly to the prototype after all Valencia sees all sorts from Queens to Harland and Wolff diesels.Andy.  

[Galteemore]

Much wisdom above. Having begun broad gauge modelling myself two years ago, I can testify that there is much to commend in the Iain Rice cameo approach - a small self contained layout. Not much track required, not much stock, not much space needed, but lots of emphasis on the layout as a whole package - scenery, lighting etc. Hornby Trainmat it is not! An ideal way to prove concepts and get something sorted quickly. If you get bored with one aspect you can go and do something different on the layout, but a complete project can be assembled in a reasonable amount of time, giving a sense of progress and completion. Modelling is often as much of a psychological challenge as it is one of skill!

Edited January 17, 2021 by Galteemore

[murphaph]

Some great thoughts there folks. Indeed I have been reconsidering what I can realistically fit into the available space and also what I can realistically accomplish alone.

I would really like a mainline/branch line setup and I really want it largely based on a real location. The plan is eventually to run a real timetable from the 90s.

I've been thinking a more realistic approach might be Kildare-Cherryville-Athy. This has other advantages, more colour light signals and fewer semaphores (but still some for interest). I could include the Tegral factory in low relief (it would lend itself extremely well to this and there's the interesting concrete bridge over the Barrow). Still retains some shunting/running around at Kildare and at the factory.

Lots to consider.

I will definitely be doing it all in phases so I don't feel overwhelmed by it all.

 

[Galteemore]

Sounds good. Tegral factory branch is interesting and historic with its Ballylinan back story. Some fantastic scope for a 141 shuffling about in the weeds.https://thewandererphotos.smugmug.com/ForgottenRailways/The-Wolfhill-Branch/i-Vndptrw/A

Edited January 18, 2021 by Galteemore

[Robert Shrives]

Athy is a good choice for traffic and diversions along with the useful bit that back in the last century the Railway Modeller ran an occasional Irish stations article and Athy was done with drawings and trackplan. 

Just dug out article . June 1989 page 274 - 276.

Robert 

[StevieB]

27 minutes ago, Robert Shrives said:

Athy is a good choice for traffic and diversions along with the useful bit that back in the last century the Railway Modeller ran an occasional Irish stations article and Athy was done with drawings and trackplan. 

Just dug out article . June 1989 page 274 - 276.

Robert 

That was a good, but short series, of articles. I believe others were Killarney, Carlow and Rathmore. An interesting variety.

Stephen

[murphaph]

So my first few bits have started arriving...

Filing jigs, track gauges, 10m of bullhead rail and 28mm pinpoint axles from the S4 society (stung for vat by the customs unfortunately but not unexpectedly).

I managed to get a hold of Marcway (at home as the shop is closed) on the phone just now and placed an order for 1000 34mm copper clad sleepers and a few sheets of strip for the points.

Step by step on the way to 21mm.

[Robert Shrives]

Have fun , building track  is generally therapeutic!  and like riding a bike once lessons over it is not forgotten, but then experiences kick in and progress can be quick. - But like bike riding falling off/ over the handle bars a risk - burnt fingers and not cleaning off flux properly  spring to mind.

Robert