Converting an Engine to P:48: What information do I need?

Not sure I would go that way.  Try a complete new mechanism.  You can actually buy them.  And go with some caution until you are sure you want to operate with the exacting standards of Proto 48.  This locomotive, a couple cars, and a loop.

Good advice above.

pittsburghrailfan posted:

Hello, 

I've been idly contemplating for a while converting an MTH Railking Scale MP15AC  to P:48. From reading up on other conversions, I understand that I need to convert the hi-rail wheels to P:48 wheelsets, and possibly slim down the truck blocks (or fabricate new ones). And with the news that NWSL is shutting down soon, I figured I should at least start collecting materials while they are readily available. 

With that premise in mind, what sort of information do I need to gather to start buying materials? Is there anywhere on the MTH website I can find the size of the gear used on the MP15's wheels, or the rest of the truck? Or should I order an unpowered Stanton drive unit (will that work with vertical can motors)?

Basically, how should I proceed? 

My apologies for my ignorance, but this is for the most part brand-new to me. 

Hello,

Is there any reason you would want to stick with the vertical can motors when many of us feel that horizontal drives are slower and more prototypical?

There are quite a number of successful P:48 layouts and many that both operate and look perfect. 

Not all of us like 172 profile wheels from the early 1900s on our trains.   

Rule292 posted:

pittsburghrailfan posted:

Hello, 

I've been idly contemplating for a while converting an MTH Railking Scale MP15AC  to P:48. From reading up on other conversions, I understand that I need to convert the hi-rail wheels to P:48 wheelsets, and possibly slim down the truck blocks (or fabricate new ones). And with the news that NWSL is shutting down soon, I figured I should at least start collecting materials while they are readily available. 

With that premise in mind, what sort of information do I need to gather to start buying materials? Is there anywhere on the MTH website I can find the size of the gear used on the MP15's wheels, or the rest of the truck? Or should I order an unpowered Stanton drive unit (will that work with vertical can motors)?

Basically, how should I proceed? 

My apologies for my ignorance, but this is for the most part brand-new to me. 

Hello,

Is there any reason you would want to stick with the vertical can motors when many of us feel that horizontal drives are slower and more prototypical?

There are quite a number of successful P:48 layouts and many that both operate and look perfect. 

Not all of us like 172 profile wheels from the early 1900s on our trains.   

My thought was that installing new trucks would be both less costly and less involved than putting in an entirely new drive mechanism. Plus, I would like to leave the original electronics in, and I am unsure if the shell has the space for both the horizontal drive and the boards. 

Less costly if you do it yourself.  Not "less involved" since you are essentially re-inventing the wheel.

Be prepared to spend more on Proto-48, and when selling time arrives be prepared to take a hit.  The market is thin.

But the satisfaction is there - you are a quantum leap closer to modeling the real thing.  That is the point of a hobby - satisfaction.  So, go for it.  Be prepared to learn a lot about machining and gear alignment.

Dan,

There are other venues that may provide more of what you're looking for.  This is a great forum but it's not loaded with P:48 modelers.  If you use FB you might want to take a look at Gene's page.  https://www.facebook.com/groups/157663678335795/

Jay

The engine picked to change to P48  is not it. Try a two Rail model with better detail and a better shell. 

You should do nothing in P48 till you know more. Run some two rail, join a two rail club, read about two rail, P48 is a great niche of the hobby but you need skills and somebody to learn from. 

What you are trying to do now will be a waste of time and money. Learn first then build. 

Dave

Good advice from Dave.  If one is going to invest the time and money to modify 5' gauge O scale models to P48 4'8 1/2" fine scale I recommend you start the best running mech you can find.     3 rail China drive mechanisms may be robust but IMO they fall short of single horizontal motor drives for most models, and especially so for fine sale P48 modelling.   

- compromised appearance as the motor(s) intrude into diesel cabs

- due to vertical clearance issues, smallish (low torque) motors are used - impacts starting performance

- again due to height restrictions - flywheel mass is less than what is possible  with a single motor horizontal drive train

- generally high gear ratios - again impacting low speed starting performance

- exposed spur gears which over time can pick up layout crud, 

- spur gears generally run noisier than enclosed axel gearbox worm drives  

- harder to customize (up grading motors, gear ratios, flywheels, ball bearings, etc)

- cannot spring/equalize the axels as they are rigid in the truck block

- and from a P48 perspective - difficult to narrow the back to back wheel  gauge due to the die cast block and spur gears

Dan,

Hopefully Proto48Patrick will see this and chime in.  He's modeling modern Conrail in P:48 and they used MP15s so he may have already went down the same route as you. 

Much good advice on this forum and on the P:48 list.     It's certainly a niche in the hobby but it seems as if you're looking to cut your teeth on something so why not do what you want.   While this thread may not have as much P:48 advice as you are looking for it certainly brings to the table some of the issues you might have in converting this particular model and the pitfalls (or advantages) of a particular drive whilst keeping the electronics you have.

The "China Drive" setup will perform the same no matter the track gauge or driver tire width.  While I agree that a dedicated "Jay C" or "MMW" mechanism would be easiest and better running, a good machinist could make a China truck block work.

There is no reason to insist that just because one wants to run on correct track and wheels the models themselves have to be of a higher order.  The two are related, but not inextricably so.

If it were mine, I would do what the OP proposes - well, that's what I have indeed done on my 1 1/8" gauge trains.  Others carry it to the Nth.  That's ok.

Conrail had the MP15DC's I think.  If you were starting with an Atlas unit, that would be way better than the MTH unit.   Those Atlas MP15's run very nicely.

Dan,

I'll start by asking you what your goals are in dipping your toe in the p48 waters, echoing some of the concerns previously mentioned about the prototype accuracy of the MTH model. Those goals may have some bearing on the choice of the Railking mp15ac as your first model to convert to p48.  While Bob is correct in that there is no explicit relationship between p48 wheel and track standards, and the accuracy of models employing them, there often is a correlation between the pursuit of accurate wheels and gauge and pursuit of more prototypically accurate models in general.  So it is something to think about.

More importantly, I also think that there are a few better choices as a gateway model to get introduced to p48, from the perspective of ease of conversion.  One of those is the Atlas sw8/9/1200 model.  They are readily available on ebay at good prices, there are drop-in replacement wheel sets available, and starting from a 2-rail model will further simplify the entire process.  The p48 conversion literally would take 5 minutes.  The Atlas mp15dc would also be an excellent candidate for conversion, except they are harder to find in 2-rail.  Even models like the Atlas gp9 or rs-1 can be converted to p48 with drop-in wheel sets.  So there are many options out there.

All that being said, I'm going to presume that you are starting with the Railking mp15ac because you already utilize the DCS control system, and you already have the model in hand.  Obviously, non-MTH locos would require conversion to DCS as well as to p48 if you wanted to use them with your current command system.

Setting those considerations aside for the moment, I'll list out the steps I think you will need to take to convert your locomotive to 2-rail p48 standards.  Actually, most if not all of these steps would be the same for conversion to standard 5'-0" gauge 2-rail as well.

I've never owned an MTH loco, but I've read or heard things about the process of converting them to 2-rail, so I'm going to start with the presumption that your loco features the truck block with the captured axles.  That means that the blocks can not be easily opened, and conversion will require pulling the wheels from the axles rather than removing and replacing an entire wheel set, axle included.

1)  Figure out whether modifications to the truck block will be required for the conversion, due to the narrower gauge of p48.  The simplest way I can think of to do this is to measure the back to back (BTB) dimension of the current wheels, and compare that to the back to back dimension of p48 wheels.  If the BTB of the current wheels is less than or equal to the BTB of the p48 wheels, then no modification of the block will be needed.  If the BTB of the current wheels is greater than the p48 wheels, you will need to then determine the overall width of the truck block and any external gears, and compare that to the BTB of the p48 wheels.  If you have clearance, no modifications will be necessary.  If the overall width of the block plus any gears exceeds the BTB of the p48 wheels, then quite a bit of modification of the block and placement of gears will be required to make the new wheels fit, which I would consider to be the most significant part of this conversion.

For reference sake, I measure the BTB on a set of p48 loco wheels at 1.100" +/- a few thousands.  I measure the BTB on a set of 3-rail freight car wheels (all I have handy) at 1.025" +/- a few thousands.  Based on those measurements, and if the 3-rail loco wheels match the freight car wheels, I don't believe truck block modification will be necessary.

If you move forward with the conversion at this point, then you will need to complete the following list of tasks:

2)  Remove existing wheels and replace with p48 wheels, with all wheels insulated.  The wheels are easy enough to get, but they will need to be sized to fit the existing axles, which may not be as easy to achieve.  There are ways to mate up different sized axles and wheels, but this would involve something like fabricating new bushings or sleeves, which would not be an off the shelf component.

3)  Remove the roller pickups, and disconnect the track power leads from the truck block and roller, to the motor or board, from the truck end.  

4)  Fabricate or purchase new power pickups, and figure out how to mount them to the truck block, while maintaining electrical isolation from the block to avoid shorting.  Pickups usually consist of phosphor bronze wire or thin gauge phosphor bronze strips, in other words springy stuff, although other methods are available.

5)  Connect new power pickups to the existing power leads, so that both pickups on one side connect to the truck block lead, and both pickups on the opposite side connect to the roller lead.  If you cross things up, you will have a short.  There are typical practices for which leads from which side are the hot and neutral connections.

That is an oversimplified list of the steps involved in modifying your locomotive.  Obviously, any of the four steps can get complicated, and if truck block modification is required, the difficulty of the entire process increases exponentially.

In addition to modifying the locomotive, you will need to research what is involved in using DCS with 2-rail track.  I know it can be done, and really I don't think it's any more difficult then reassigning the feed from the middle rail to one of the two outside rails.  However, there may be specifics about which rail carries the signal or something of that nature, and specific arrangements like that may also dictate the arrangement of motor lead connections in the loco (again, I'm not an MTH or DCS guy so I don't know specifics).  Also remember that 2-rail wiring must account for reverse loop polarity swaps.

To answer your other questions in the original post, my instinct is that you won't have to modify the truck block, a phone call to MTH might be required to find specs if you ultimately need them, and lastly I don't think a Stanton drive is the answer here, but I suppose it's a possible solution.  Although you would just use the Stanton drive, powered as intended, with p48 wheels, and figure out how to mount it to the mp15ac chassis and connect all the various leads.

I think you need to consider your goals, and your skills and comfort level with this sort of work.  Understand that there are potentially better choices for models to start with, although there are trade-offs between ease of conversion, and implementing or maintaining DCS control.  Any 2-rail model, or even MTH 3-2 model, will be easier to convert with regard to the wiring aspect.  Know that none of the above addresses cosmetic changes to the model like fixing the pilots and lengthening the handrails.  

I hope that this summary gives you at least a preliminary idea of what will be involved.  If you decide to go ahead with the conversion, I can follow up with more specific information on sourcing vendors and supplies.

Good luck!
Jim

big train posted:

Dan,

I'll start by asking you what your goals are in dipping your toe in the p48 waters, echoing some of the concerns previously mentioned about the prototype accuracy of the MTH model. Those goals may have some bearing on the choice of the Railking mp15ac as your first model to convert to p48.  While Bob is correct in that there is no explicit relationship between p48 wheel and track standards, and the accuracy of models employing them, there often is a correlation between the pursuit of accurate wheels and gauge and pursuit of more prototypically accurate models in general.  So it is something to think about.

Over the past few years, I have become increasingly annoyed with the unrealistic appearance of the wider O gauge track. Hence, my principal objective in investigating P48 is to run trains that look more realistic gauge-wise. Superdetailing is right now a secondary consideration for me, though I do value prototypicality. 

More importantly, I also think that there are a few better choices as a gateway model to get introduced to p48, from the perspective of ease of conversion.  One of those is the Atlas sw8/9/1200 model.  They are readily available on ebay at good prices, there are drop-in replacement wheel sets available, and starting from a 2-rail model will further simplify the entire process.  The p48 conversion literally would take 5 minutes.  The Atlas mp15dc would also be an excellent candidate for conversion, except they are harder to find in 2-rail.  Even models like the Atlas gp9 or rs-1 can be converted to p48 with drop-in wheel sets.  So there are many options out there.

Are the drop-in wheelsets common across all Atlas 2-rail engines, for example the GP60? I joined the P48 Facebook group, and it was also recommended there that I start out with an SW9, if I was looking for an EMD switcher. 

All that being said, I'm going to presume that you are starting with the Railking mp15ac because you already utilize the DCS control system, and you already have the model in hand.  Obviously, non-MTH locos would require conversion to DCS as well as to p48 if you wanted to use them with your current command system.

As alluded to above, I do not have this engine; most of my current stock is Railking steam (2 engines) or the Railking SD70ACe (2 engines). I plan on keeping the steam engines because they are local liveries, but once I have more time and finances I plan to sell about half of my current 3-rail collection and focus on scale modeling.I chose the MP15 because it is an engine I like, but there are certainly others out there, some of which Atlas makes, and some of which are Premier. A MTH engine would be ideal, since I do have the DCS system, and PS3 engines can be run on DCC as well if I decide to switch in the future. On the other hand, I also love the realistic recordings TCS uses, and an Atlas DC engine would let me try my hand at installing a decoder. 

At this stage, I consider myself relatively uninvested, so I am willing to go in a multitude of directions. 

On a side note: I also like the MTH 44-tonner, but that is probably something I should wait to try converting. The engine is 3-rail only (meaning it probably has captured axles), and the small size of the trucks would necessitate using multiple Flying Carpets or similar instead of Stanton drives. 

pittsburghrailfan posted:

..........On a side note: I also like the MTH 44-tonner, but that is probably something I should wait to try converting. The engine is 3-rail only (meaning it probably has captured axles), and the small size of the trucks would necessitate using multiple Flying Carpets or similar instead of Stanton drives. 

While I would hate to see you miss all the, er, fun in converting an MTH 44T,  a few years back Rich Yoder imported 44 tonners in, inter alia, P48, and that might be a better approach.

In addition to being scheduled to be at the upcoming Strasburg show, Rich is scheduled to be at York;  in my opinion a potential P48'er might wish to stop by at least one of these opportunities if your schedule etc permits..

Disclaimer:  I have no association with him or his company, and am not even a P48'er.

Best regards, SZ

Regarding drop-in wheel sets for the various Atlas locos, I know that NWSL recommends the same part number for both the gp9 and the rs-1.  I don't know for certain, but I suspect that all the Atlas gp's utilize the same truck block.  If so, then the NWSL wheel sets should fit any of the Atlas gp's including the gp60 and gp15-1.  A call to NWSL should verify if this is the case.

NWSL does offer a drop-in set for the sw8/9/1200, but they do not offer the same thing for the mp15dc.  But the solution for the mp15dc is simple, if you preferred the more modern EMD switcher.  Send your existing wheel sets to Jay, and he will use the donor axle gears and bushings and so on to assemble matching wheel sets with p48 wheels.  The beauty of this arrangement is that you can start with a 3-rail model, which is more commonly available than the 2-rail versions.  The gears are the same for both.  The trade off with this method is that you no longer have the original wheel sets if you wanted to change back to 3-rail, although you would still have the parts.  You would be back to fabricating pickups of some sort, and filling in the pilot gap, but overall the pilots are already fixed on this model, and the frame already includes mounting holes for body mounted Atlas couplers.

I presumed you already had the Railking mp15ac in hand.  If you do not, then choosing a different loco to start with, especially a 2-rail model, may be a better option.  With respect to DCS command control, you can apparently get ps3 upgrade kits, they will apparently fit even in the Atlas sw8/9/1200, and their price seems to be very close to the cost of an O scale decoder in the vein of the Loksound 4.0 L select, if keep alive is included.  So the desired end result can be achieved even if you start with a non-MTH locomotive.

As far as the 44 tonner is concerned, I believe it does have the captured axles.  However, the wheels can be changed on locos with this style of truck block.  It's just not as simple as the drop-in sets.  If you want to go the route of the Stanton drives or Magic Carpets, that's up to you, but it isn't actually necessary or a better alternative to do so.

Jim

big train posted:

Regarding drop-in wheel sets for the various Atlas locos, I know that NWSL recommends the same part number for both the gp9 and the rs-1.  I don't know for certain, but I suspect that all the Atlas gp's utilize the same truck block.  If so, then the NWSL wheel sets should fit any of the Atlas gp's including the gp60 and gp15-1.  A call to NWSL should verify if this is the case.

NWSL does offer a drop-in set for the sw8/9/1200, but they do not offer the same thing for the mp15dc.  m

Better get a move on if going the NWSL route since they are closing up shop in a few months.

"After 60 years in business, NWSL will cease operations effective August 30th, 2019. The company will continue to take orders for in-stock products until July 1st, 2019. Closure is for personal reasons and sale of the business is not anticipated, although reasonable proposals will be considered."

Kind of a tragedy quite apart from the loss he suffered in his family.  I can understand that the joy has gone out of his business.

For me, the tragedy is that there are no longer viable steam gearboxes available for O scale.  I did stock up before Raoul sold out, but those are long gone.  The Mod 0.6 was a perfect Lobaugh or Max Gray replacement, and drive shafts stayed below the driver tops.

You might want to give this a read and some thought before you decide. Also the NMRA standard for wheel profile is 145, not 172.

the difference between 'standard' O gauge (1.25") vs. P48 gauge (1.17") is .08" or 3/32", which means each side gets adjusted in 3/64" to achieve P48 gauge

The following is a quote from O Scale Hall of Famer Joe Foehrkolb regarding his thoughts on P48:

"When I first started converting locomotives from 3 rail to 2 rail I conducted several clinics at O meets explaining my methods.  Often times I would be asked about converting models to P-48.  I used to carry two lengths of 3/4" square pine wood, one cut 20 times the length of 1-1/4" gauge and the other 20 times the length of P-48.  I would hold them up to the audience side by side for comparison so they could see the difference.  Then I put them behind my back and held one out and asked which gauge they were looking at.  No one could tell me without guessing.  In a world of things to be concerned with,  the width of O scale track is not on my list.  I am quite content with 1-1/4" gauge and so are most O scale modelers.  IMO laying track to P-48 standards does not make you a better modeler, but you can't bring your models over to my railroad and operate them nor can I operate my models on your railroad.  In a minority scale like 2 rail O, it seems sad that we are divided like this."

Simon

Simon Winter posted:

 

The following is a quote from O Scale Hall of Famer Joe Foehrkolb regarding his thoughts on P48:

"When I first started converting locomotives from 3 rail to 2 rail I conducted several clinics at O meets explaining my methods.  Often times I would be asked about converting models to P-48.  I used to carry two lengths of 3/4" square pine wood, one cut 20 times the length of 1-1/4" gauge and the other 20 times the length of P-48.  I would hold them up to the audience side by side for comparison so they could see the difference.  Then I put them behind my back and held one out and asked which gauge they were looking at.  No one could tell me without guessing.  In a world of things to be concerned with,  the width of O scale track is not on my list.  I am quite content with 1-1/4" gauge and so are most O scale modelers.  IMO laying track to P-48 standards does not make you a better modeler, but you can't bring your models over to my railroad and operate them nor can I operate my models on your railroad.  In a minority scale like 2 rail O, it seems sad that we are divided like this."

Simon

Wow! That is very interesting and extremely well said. I wholeheartedly agree.

Simon Winter posted:

You might want to give this a read and some thought before you decide. Also the NMRA standard for wheel profile is 145, not 172.

the difference between 'standard' O gauge (1.25") vs. P48 gauge (1.17") is .08" or 3/32", which means each side gets adjusted in 3/64" to achieve P48 gauge

The following is a quote from O Scale Hall of Famer Joe Foehrkolb regarding his thoughts on P48:

"When I first started converting locomotives from 3 rail to 2 rail I conducted several clinics at O meets explaining my methods.  Often times I would be asked about converting models to P-48.  I used to carry two lengths of 3/4" square pine wood, one cut 20 times the length of 1-1/4" gauge and the other 20 times the length of P-48.  I would hold them up to the audience side by side for comparison so they could see the difference.  Then I put them behind my back and held one out and asked which gauge they were looking at.  No one could tell me without guessing.  In a world of things to be concerned with,  the width of O scale track is not on my list.  I am quite content with 1-1/4" gauge and so are most O scale modelers.  IMO laying track to P-48 standards does not make you a better modeler, but you can't bring your models over to my railroad and operate them nor can I operate my models on your railroad.  In a minority scale like 2 rail O, it seems sad that we are divided like this."

Simon

Great machinist but his "opinion" is another reason O scale is generally stuck in the 40s and 50s and the age of the clientele at the March Meet shows it.

Why would it be "sad" to want your train wheels and track to have the same profile and width as the real thing?  The late Robert Hegge (and others) found this out 40 plus years ago and O "scale" never corrected. 

Oh, and always remember that the HO "Horn hook" coupler was an NMRA standard (X2f). 

In the end, it's a hobby and what makes you happy is what's best.    I love 3 rail under my tree and 2 rail outside but I'll model P:48, thank you. 

Rule292 posted:

Simon Winter posted:

You might want to give this a read and some thought before you decide. Also the NMRA standard for wheel profile is 145, not 172.

the difference between 'standard' O gauge (1.25") vs. P48 gauge (1.17") is .08" or 3/32", which means each side gets adjusted in 3/64" to achieve P48 gauge

The following is a quote from O Scale Hall of Famer Joe Foehrkolb regarding his thoughts on P48:

"When I first started converting locomotives from 3 rail to 2 rail I conducted several clinics at O meets explaining my methods.  Often times I would be asked about converting models to P-48.  I used to carry two lengths of 3/4" square pine wood, one cut 20 times the length of 1-1/4" gauge and the other 20 times the length of P-48.  I would hold them up to the audience side by side for comparison so they could see the difference.  Then I put them behind my back and held one out and asked which gauge they were looking at.  No one could tell me without guessing.  In a world of things to be concerned with,  the width of O scale track is not on my list.  I am quite content with 1-1/4" gauge and so are most O scale modelers.  IMO laying track to P-48 standards does not make you a better modeler, but you can't bring your models over to my railroad and operate them nor can I operate my models on your railroad.  In a minority scale like 2 rail O, it seems sad that we are divided like this."

Simon

Great machinist but his "opinion" is another reason O scale is generally stuck in the 40s and 50s and the age of the clientele at the March Meet shows it.

Why would it be "sad" to want your train wheels and track to have the same profile and width as the real thing?  The late Robert Hegge (and others) found this out 40 plus years ago and O "scale" never corrected. 

I think it's instructive to note that not everyone in HO models in P:87 or S Scale P:64 (Is there a P:160 for N Scale?)  While these scales don't have the "gauge" issue that O has, many are quite happy with what has become the standard wheel profile for their respective scales. (RP25 for HO and Code 110 for S Scale. 

However, there are adherents to P:xx modeling in both scales but they are also in the minority.

I would suspect that even if there were to be a marketing and manufacturing shift to true O "gauge" track (4'8-1/2") and models, the wheels would still have a wider profile than P:48.

Oh, and always remember that the HO "Horn hook" coupler was an NMRA standard (X2f). 

Once the Kadee patent's expired in the 1990's, the X2F quickly joined the dinosaurs in extinction.  No HO manufacturer offers equipment with X2F's anymore.  They all offer Kadees or Kadee clone couplers.

In the end, it's a hobby and what makes you happy is what's best.   

That's all that really matters in this hobby, regardless of scale.

Rusty

I love 3 rail under my tree and 2 rail outside but I'll model P:48, thank you. 

 

There are too many modelers that are "afraid" of P48.  If you don't like it, then don't do.   I can guarantee that all the P48 modelers can see the difference between 5' gauge and the correct 4'8.5" gauge in a heartbeat. 

Too me, all I can see if overly fat treads, sideframes sticking out too far, huge flanges.   All that looks toyish to me.  P48 does make you a better modeler.   Better than the next person?...NO!  Its not a competition but I can tell you that my eye is more finely tuned since I made the jump to P48.  Some strive for as much accuracy that can be had in a scale.  Others do not.  Who cares?

Everyone forgets that we are playing with trains.  This is a hobby, enjoy whatever parts you like and leave the other guys alone.

The difference between 'standard' O gauge (1.25") vs. P48 gauge (1.17") is .08" or 3/32", which means each side gets adjusted in 3/64" to achieve P48 gauge

YOU WANT TO OBSOLETE THOUSANDS OF MODELS FOR THE SAKE OF A TRIVIAL MEASUREMENT.

JUST MAKE A STANDARD GAUGE WHEEL IN 115 PROFILE AND BE DONE WITH IT. YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT MAKING SO CALLED PERFECT WHEELS FOR IMPERFECT MODELS. START MEASURING ALL YOUR EQUIPMENT AND COMPARE IT TO BUILDER SPECS AND TELL ME HOW MUCH OF IT IS DEAD ON ACCURATE IN EVERY DIMENSION?

YOU'VE MISSED THE EASY, OBVIOUS ANSWER.

Simon

Hey PITTSBURGRAILFAN  a question about your post:  where did you hear that NWSL is shutting down soon? 

Can anyone verify this?

they look like they are in business full swing. Check out their website.

Leroof posted:

Hey PITTSBURGRAILFAN  a question about your post:  where did you hear that NWSL is shutting down soon? 

Can anyone verify this?

they look like they are in business full swing. Check out their website.

 

May I suggest that you check their Facebook site/page, as the "announcement" is dated March 17, 2019, about their closing the business due to a death.

Hot Water posted:

Leroof posted:

Hey PITTSBURGRAILFAN  a question about your post:  where did you hear that NWSL is shutting down soon? 

Can anyone verify this?

they look like they are in business full swing. Check out their website.

 

May I suggest that you check their Facebook site/page, as the "announcement" is dated March 17, 2019, about their closing the business due to a death.

There was also an OGR Forum post a few days ago where a member stated they had received an email to that effect; that's where I first heard about it, and which prompted my inquiry. Thank you all for the advice on how to proceed; If I can find a good deal on a 2-rail Atlas switcher, that's probably the way I'll go, especially since this is a trial run of P48, and I'll be learning about how to hand-lay track and switches concurrently. 

jgtrh62 posted:

Dan you likely are already aware but in addition to handlaying, Proto48 flex track and prebuilt turnouts are also commercially available. Good luck!

Actually, I was not aware, and at the risk of hijacking my own thread, who makes pre-built turnouts and flextrack? 

pittsburghrailfan posted:

jgtrh62 posted:

Dan you likely are already aware but in addition to handlaying, Proto48 flex track and prebuilt turnouts are also commercially available. Good luck!

Actually, I was not aware, and at the risk of hijacking my own thread, who makes pre-built turnouts and flextrack? 

You can also join the Groups IO Proto 48 group.  

You will have to subscribe:  https://groups.io/  

And there is also much good information at Proto48.org:

https://www.proto48.org/

Wow.  This thing almost went off the tracks.  No need to be angry with folks who want to do things differently.

I admit to being puzzled by folks with perfect scenery and locomotives, running on center rail track.  I can understand folks maybe being puzzled in the same way when I use .172 treads.  But being angry about it?  That makes no sense.

Joe is a stunningly good machinist, but his experiment with 2x4s is flawed.

What you want to do is take two identical box cars, one with standard trucks, the other with Proto-48, look at them end on, and then see if you can tell the difference.  For me,, the track width is glaring - it shouts at me!  Even a non-train person can see the difference.  If the difference doesn't bother you, stay with wide gauge.  I won't be angry with you.

I solve the track width two ways - one, I have some 1 1/8" gauge models.  I an slightly undersize, but I can use .172 wheelsets and have correct width trucksideframes.  Two, my steam models are usually 17/64 scale, which is the proper scale for O gauge.  I do not need to convert anybody else to either of those ideas.

bob2 posted:

Joe is a stunningly good machinist, but his experiment with 2x4s is flawed.

If it's flawed, tell us how.

 

What you want to do is take two identical box cars, one with standard trucks, the other with Proto-48, look at them end on, and then see if you can tell the difference.  For me,, the track width is glaring - it shouts at me!  Even a non-train person can see the difference.  If the difference doesn't bother you, stay withwide gauge.  I won't be angry with you. 

 

The ISSUE is NOT the trucks. The discussion is TRACK GAUGE. Get wheel sets with IDENTICAL wheel profiles and put them in trucks with the same thickness of side frames. Set them on identical track (same code rail and same type ties) with only the GAUGE being different. Take pictures of each, and hold up the photos one at a time. Now tell us which is which. ALL the examples with the wide side frames and larger profile wheels are BOGUS, because they have absolutely NOTHING to do with gauge. The only thing we are REALLY discussing is that wee bitty difference in width.

What it is that is flawed is your reasoning. You RIG things to support your arguement by looking at everything but the actual issue.

Simon

 

 

Simon Winter posted:

What it is that is flawed is your reasoning. You RIG things to support your arguement by looking at everything but the actual issue.

 

Careful now - let's not accuse him of being a member of Congress 

My personal experience - I saw an OW5 box car next to a P48 box car.  I did not look back at OW5 and made the switch.

Several years back, I met someone at an O scale train show who was quite friendly and jovial until I mentioned I model in P48.  I thought I developed the plague. 

Some people don’t like to have their “world” disturbed.

Larry

The difference between me and Simon is that I am expressing opinions, and he is expressing facts.

As far as I can tell, opinions may diverge from facts.  I am free to think that the Earth is flat if I want.  I am not free to insist that I am correct and everybody else is wrong.  Well, I am free to do that, but then everyone would know . . .

So, Opinion:

Joe's experiment, as I understand it, is showing you a 2x4, and then showing you a shorter one, proving that without them being side by side you cannot tell that one is shorter.  That part is valid, and (again opinion) irrelevant.  As Einstein said, it is all relative . . .

For me, it is the track gauge that glares at me.  O gauge looks too wide to me when viewed with a 1/4" scale model parked on it.  And having wide side frames gets to me - I like them tucked under the side sills.

Simon is insisting that I am wrong - that may well be - am I also wrong in, say, not liking 1958 Chevys, for instance, or thinking that British steam is ugly?  Or that I like un-prototypical wide treads?

Back to

Opinion

after each post?

bob2 posted:

The difference between me and Simon is that I am expressing opinions, and he is expressing facts.

Actually, Simon starts his post with the fact of track width, but then he EXPRESSES HIS OPINIONS USING ALL CAPS, hoping that will shut down any views contrary to his opinions. And his use of BOLD reinforces this fact.

As far as I can tell, opinions may diverge from facts.  I am free to think that the Earth is flat if I want.  I am not free to insist that I am correct and everybody else is wrong.  Well, I am free to do that, but then everyone would know . . .

So, Opinion:

Joe's experiment, as I understand it, is showing you a 2x4, and then showing you a shorter one, proving that without them being side by side you cannot tell that one is shorter.  That part is valid, and (again opinion) irrelevant.  As Einstein said, it is all relative . . .

Joe is correct that when trying to eyeball the difference between 2x4’s with a 3/32 inch difference is almost impossible, but his experiment is flawed.  Joe is trying to make people believe it makes no difference and he is correct using 2x4’s; however, when you place an OW5 box car on OW5 track next to a P48 box car on P48 track, the difference “SCREAMS” out at you. 

 

For me, it is the track gauge that glares at me.  O gauge looks too wide to me when viewed with a 1/4" scale model parked on it.  And having wide side frames gets to me - I like them tucked under the side sills.

Simon is insisting that I am wrong - that may well be - am I also wrong in, say, not liking 1958 Chevys, for instance, or thinking that British steam is ugly?  Or that I like un-prototypical wide treads?

Simon insisting you are wrong is “EXACTLY” what is wrong with some of the people in this hobby.  They leave no room for anything else, improvement or change.  And Bob, don’t be wishy-washy.  You are not wrong!  Based on Simon’s objection to P48, I would venture to guess he has the same issue that the gentleman I mentioned I met at an O scale show several years ago.  After I mentioned I modeled in P48, he said, “P48 is going nowhere. Besides what am I going to do with all of my inventory.”  Yes he had 4 tables of OW5 stuff. Does Simon fear his “investment” in OW5 will become worthless?

I appreciate ALL aspects of model railroading, HO, O, OW5, P48, Narrow gauge, On30, Lionel, American Flyer, Std Gauge, Live Steam, Garden RR...etc.  It is a great hobby and I appreciate and enjoy the efforts of all modelers. 

Larry

Larry, I don't recall saying that anyone had to buy anything!  And that standard gauge boxcar can be modified to look just like the P48 one.

Simon

Simon Winter posted:

Larry, I don't recall saying that anyone had to buy anything!  And that standard gauge boxcar can be modified to look just like the P48 one.

Simon

In an earlier post you said, “YOU WANT TO OBSOLETE THOUSANDS OF MODELS FOR THE SAKE OF A TRIVIAL MEASUREMENT.”

And in this post you said a std gauge box car can be modified to P48

So which is it, Obsolescence or Conversion?

 I don’t understand why someone converting to P48 is so upsetting to you.  If someone owns a perfectly good OW5 locomotive and converts it to P48, how does that affect you? It may be a trivial measurement to you, but to the person that converts, it is important to them.  And how does someone converting to P48 obsolete thousands of models?

If importers/manufacturers go where the market demands which format will prevail? VHS or BetaMax? BluRay or HD-DVD?  OW5 or P48?

Larry

Well, P-48 is an extremely limited market, and will not be taking over soon.  Opinion, remember?

It is not for sissies - I for one cannot keep .115 tread wheels on the track.  As low as I can go is about .155, which is Sunset standard from two decades ago.  My problem is my limited attention to trackwork.

But I have great admiration for the efforts of those who are the prime movers - they are generally excellent modelers, and far more serious about it than I am.

If I were King, my edict would be 17/64.  I am not King, and am quite happy just building my own.  Most of my rolling stock is 1/4" scale rolling on O gauge .172 trucks.  Looks fine behind giant 17/64 Cab Forwards.

There really is room for everybody in this interesting hobby.

Opinion.

LLKJR posted:

If importers/manufacturers go where the market demands which format will prevail? VHS or BetaMax? BluRay or HD-DVD?  OW5 or P48?

 

Larry

There's an interesting question - market demands.  Just how many P48 engines has Sunset brought in in the last decade?  How about the other importers for that matter?

I could consider it were there realistic means to convert all of my steam engines. OTOH, 5' is very close to correct for PA trolley lines so I'd need to keep that track in place at the same time - anybody ever dual gauge P48 and 5'?

FWIW, I keep a pretty good set of books and track (not a pun) all my sales.  Nearly half are for P:48.  I think the largest flaw in all the wisdom being shared here...just because you don't get involved doesn't mean others are not.  P:48 is growing far faster than most of you seem to realize.

There is a very large percentage of modelers moving from smaller scales to O Scale & P:48.

Like it, love it, hate it, ambivalent?  So is the large bird with his head stuck in the sand.

Jay