Proto 48 Help

Proto-48 is an admirable ambition.  Start with an 0-6-0 and a couple freight cars, and a test loop.  See if you have the fortitude.  Fine scale treads and flanges are unforgiving.  And a ten-coupled steamer is the absolute worst to start with.

Joe Foehrkolb can do the conversion economically, but he is very busy, and might not want to work to the accuracy required for Proto-48.

if you are coming from 3-rail, consider wider tread wheels, or maybe O Scale.

Thanks for the great advice! I may just go with standard O and see how that treats me.  My eyes aren't what they were 20 years ago and I would hate for my first run in Proto 48 to be the cement floor express!

Bob,

Your are correct.  I will not do a P-48 conversion for anyone. 

Joe Foehrkolb

Try Forsyth Rail Services.   mattforsyth.com

I used to do it but I'm just too busy now.  Jim Hanson specializes in P:48 steam conversions.  Email me and I will provide you with his contact info.  The other person is, in fact, Matt Forsyth.  I can provide his contact info also.  All the parts to do conversions are either available, or can be.

Please don't let some of these guys scare you off.  Decent track work is mandatory...perfect is not.  Less forgiving?  Maybe but so is 2 rail O Scale compared to 3 rail.

There are more and more modelers going into P:48 everyday.  It is growing far faster than some will admit.  Same with dead rail (on board battery power).

Jay

Proto-48 is indeed more accurate.  The track gauge is correct.  If you want exact scale models, this is it.

I am not a great machinist, and far from a good track layer.  I tried Proto-48 wheel profiles on my 1 1/8” loop, and was successful until the temperature changed.  I personally cannot work to those tolerances.  I do machine drivers, but only for me.  I no longer enjoy cutting tires.

But I greatly admire those modelers who make it work.  They have vastly better looking models.

Concur with Jay.  Track work is important - although, probably about the same as required for HO.  IIRC, HO flange depth on wheels is .028", whereas Proto:48 is .026".  If you can do HO, you can do P:48.  Bob2 mentioned temp changes - clearly swings in temp can effect the track - I'm fortunate that the layout is in a temp and humidity controlled basement so that issue has not caused me any problems in the 3 years I've had it.  A non-plane turnout HAS caused me problems, and of course, it's the one farthest away to reach.

My next layout will have better track standards and will make darned sure I sand down the cork roadbed completely flat for all turnouts.  I will also try hand laying track in prominent portions.  Otherwise, P:48 flex track from Right-O-Way and turnouts from Bill McConnell and  Brad Strong are top notch.

...gregg

Thanks for all the assistance folks, you have given me some good advice. I am going to give P48 a shot this fall or winter using ready made track and turnouts.  It will be in a small room in a one story home so humidity should not be a major factor. Now I just have to get that steam locomotive converted and we're off to the races....

Mike

Mike, I know of at least 5 P:48 modelers located in Indiana.  All of them will help with your latest endeavor.  Shoot you may already know them.  If not, I'll be more than happy to provide intros.

Jay

Mike,
If you have the time and inclination, you might head to the Indy O scale show next month.  The show website indicates that there will be a portable p48 layout on display, which is almost certainly Jim Canter's Nickel Plate layout.  I'm sure if you can cross paths with Jim, he would be happy to discuss p48 modeling with you.  Jim also has a home layout that I believe is p48, and it may be on display after the show.  Layout tour info isn't yet listed on the show site, but I seem to recall his layout being included on the list for past shows.

You can see some footage of the portable layout in this linked video.

I'm currently planning on attending on Friday.  If you would like to meet up to discuss p48, or 2 rail in general, shoot me a note.  My email is in my profile.  I'll offer the disclaimer though that I only claim to know enough about p48 to be dangerous .

Cheers,
Jim

Thanks Jim.  I have been contemplating on whether to attend this show or not since it is so close to home.  It's been years since I went to a train show because I haven't really needed anything ( I hate saying that, we ALWAYS need something) for my pike. Now that the three rail is gone and I am starting over with a very small switching pike (2' X 15'), I may just decide to attend.  At any rate it has been refreshing getting all the great advice on this site as well as meeting some folks that are really experienced in the fine scale stuff. 

Mike

We have updated the show Website. Both Jim Canter's layout and Warner & Mona Clark's P48 layouts will be open. Jim will also have his portable layout at the show.

BTW, the show is sold out of tables. The  vendor list is on the Website.

I certainly encourage you to attend the Indy show, especially if it's close.  There is obviously a lot of product on display and it gives you a chance to meet a significant number of P:48 practitioners.  The world of P:48 is still small enough where you can easily get to know most folks involved in it.  With the internet and social media, those relationships build rapidly and solidly.  The whole community has been very helpful - just toss out a question and someone will have encountered the issue and can provide a variety of ways to overcome barriers.

Personally, I converted to P:48 from 3RS three years ago.  It was after talking with Jay and others at O Scale West (February at the time IIRC) that sealed the deal for me and then I  attended the Indy show in the fall.  The helped me overcome my fear of converting locomotives - it's very simple: pack it well and ship it off to a guy who knows how to do it!  Since I was not planning to have more than a few engines, the cost is reasonable.  As far as modifying cars, I learned to do that myself; after a couple, it becomes very straightforward.  Plus, it gives you an excuse to buy cool tools!

Cars where the wheels and flanges are visible, such as hoppers & tank cars, make it worthwhile - looking down and seeing an accurate wheel profile and gauge is very enticing for me.

Jim Canter's layout is a must-see.  His collection of brass P:48 locomotives is a sight to behold.  Then there are his trucks - all ball bearings and they roll forever.

..gregg

Here's another way to look at it:

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

When I got into 2R O, I was unaware that the track was slightly wide and by the time I found out I had several steam engines. Took me about 5 seconds to figure out I wasn't going P48!

2R O   1 1/4"   gauge is a fraction of what 3R is and P48 is a fraction of that. If you really enjoy building stuff, P48 is probably for you. If you prefer buying stuff, there is way more of it in traditional O Scale.

If you are going to Indy, talk to people on both sides of the fence. Canter will be the short guy walking around with the BIG smile like the Cheshire cat! Nice guy!

Here is a video with some of each. Canters layout is first up. I think his might be the only P48.

    https://video.search.yahoo.com...794&action=click

Take your time and choose what is right for you!  GOOD LUCK!

Simon

And, at least for cars, you can keep the original trucks and convert back, should the mood strike.  I think what you are doing is pretty neat - but I still say start slowly, with an 0-6-0 and a loop with one switch.

I personally hate the wide gauge, and have taken steps (1 1/8" gauge for 1/4" scale stuff, and 17/64 scale for O gauge track) to obviate it.

bob2 posted:

And, at least for cars, you can keep the original trucks and convert back, should the mood strike.  I think what you are doing is pretty neat - but I still say start slowly, with an 0-6-0 and a loop with one switch.

I personally hate the wide gauge, and have taken steps (1 1/8" gauge for 1/4" scale stuff, and 17/64 scale for O gauge track) to obviate it.

 

I'm betting if I got a p48 truck and pushed the wheels out 3/64" on each side, you would never know the difference. It's all in your head.

Simon

When I first started converting locomotives from 3 rail to 2 rail I conduced 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.

Are any commercial O scale locomotives offered as P-48 models?

If you want to spend your time re-gauging a lot of cars and locomotives that are made to NMRA standards, that is your choice. 

Joe Foehrkolb          

rrjjf posted:

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.

Are any commercial O scale locomotives offered as P-48 models?

If you want to spend your time re-gauging a lot of cars and locomotives that are made to NMRA standards, that is your choice. 

Joe Foehrkolb          

Joe,

I agree with you 100%! I think Glacier Park offered a few locos in P48. Not saying there weren't others, but if so I don't recall as P48 is not my interest! I generally don't repeat a complete post, but I feel what you say is RIGHT ON!

Simon

I think one of my major issues is the size of the room for my layout.  I am limited to 8 feet on two walls which means a nasty 90 degree angle will eat up a lot of my space.  If I had 16 linear feet things would be different.  Looks like I may have to settle for standard O with 30-36" radius curves which limits my motive power to first generation diesels or small steam.  My Russian decapod and C&NW ten wheeler both negotiate this radius just fine but turnouts will have to be either curved or very short which pretty much kills the dream of Proto 48.  While it was a nice thought, it just doesn't seem practical for this type of pike.  I have a few old Roco turnouts from the 70's that are 30" radius.  They look very toy like but have a nice small branch line "esque" profile to them and can be dressed up with under table switch machines, ballast, weeds and paint.  I think Peco may offer turnouts that are a bit shorter than the Atlas #6 as well?

A few guys said I should just switch over to HO but I cannot bring myself to do that.  I have some pretty nice kitbashed buildings and plenty of Atlas, Weaver and All Nation cars that can be easily converted to scale. Some of this stuff dates back over 30 years so I have sentimental attachment to it as well. 

I have to disagree with Simon here 100%, and will fault the part of Joe's perspective where the value of worth of p48 is only defined by the difference in track gauge.  I will not argue with either that the difference in track gauge is minimal and largely imperceptible, without context.  I will absolutely argue however that the difference in wheel profiles and sideframe positioning is profoundly evident, and much more significant with respect to p48 aesthetics.  I think it is a mistake to focus only on the gauge when considering p48, rather than the combined effect of correct gauge and wheels.

I'll post these pictures, not because I'm trying to convince Simon that he's wrong, but to try and convince Mike that p48 is worthwhile if he chooses that path.  These are Atlas sw9 trucks, both with p48 wheelsets installed.  On the left the sideframes are mounted to the original Atlas gearbox cover, spaced both for 5'-0" gauge and standard 2-rail wheelsets.  On the right the sideframes are mounted to one of the p48 gearbox covers offered by Jay, sized to reflect 4'-8 1/2" gauge and wheelsets with .115" tread wheels.  Too me, the difference is much more than just in my head.

The part where you won't be able to run p48 equipment on 5'-0" gauge track and vice versa is 100% true.  The part where Joe says "that is your choice" is also 100% true and quite likely the most useful observation in this thread.

Jim

Last piece of advice, go to the show, talk to Jim, John, and the others.  They will tell you what can be done and what can't.  They've done both and have nothing to gain by offering misinformation.  If Doc Hardin shows up he may show you his Sunset 3rd Rail models that have P:48 wheel sets.

Jay

All good advice from guys that are making it happen. I appreciate that and definitely see the attraction to P48. If I could just figure a way to get some turnouts in my available space.  Looks like the smallest ready to roll P48 turnout is a #8 through Oscale Turnouts in Michigan.  Their products look great and are definitely reasonably priced but I want to have at least 4 switches on this pike to keep operation interesting. I do not want to chance buggering up hand laid turnouts in P48 due to the close tolerances and low profile flanges.  I love building and super-detailing which is the main attraction to the gauge.

Mike

Mike,

Depending on what rail you choose, there are #5s and #6s.

Again, you need to talk to the folks that know what they're talking about.

Jay

Mike,
Regarding your last post, there is no practical difference between what you can run on 5'-0" gauge track and p48 track.  There doesn't need to be a separate set of curve and switch geometry for the two gauges, and equipment that can negotiate one should be able to handle the other as well.  There are issues with things like flange spacing on switch frogs and guard rails, where the wheel profile comes into play.  But radii and frog angles should work equally well in either case. 

Also, there is nothing precluding the use of curved or short turnouts in p48.  If you can build or buy an unusual or custom switch in 5'-0" gauge, then you can build or buy the same thing in p48.  Now if you specifically want to use turnouts that you already have, then that would be a deciding factor for 5'-0" gauge, but that's a different kind of choice.

The bottom line is that I'm suggesting that room size or equipment type or track options are not the deciding factors in your choice between p48 and 5'-0" gauge - what works for one will work for the other.  The choice really comes down to what result you will be satisfied with, and whether the extra time, effort, and expense involved in implementing p48 will make the results worth it to you.

Good Luck!
Jim

Interesting, very interesting indeed! If I can find some good 'ole #5's in P48, I'm in like Flint!

I guess I meant two posts ago.  You sneaked one in there while I was typing.  

There are at least three people I can think of making custom switches in O.  One is O Scale Turnouts.  Another is Brad Strong with Signature Switch.  Jay knows a third guy whose name currently escapes me that also does custom builds.  If nothing else, search for some of Tom Thorpe's post here on the forum (username Tom Tee) where he shows examples of custom work from Signature Switch.  From the sound of it, you tell Brad what you need, and he builds it, no matter how dysfunctional the arrangement might seem.

Jim

Found the third one: Pete Mottershead - Specialty Track Services

Jim, that makes things crystal clear.  I thought I may be limited to #8 or greater if I wanted someone else to build them for me.  This forum has been a great source of information for sure. 

Just casually reading all that - sure, you can run .115 wheels on 5' gauge.  Just not on my trackwork.

In the beginning I recall the Proto-48 crowd saying that larger steam was having problems with .115 tread.  That is why I caution against starting with a Decapod.

As to the visuals - you cannot see the difference until you have something nearby to compare it with - like the end of a freight car.

Cadillac Mike posted:

Jim, that makes things crystal clear.  I thought I may be limited to #8 or greater if I wanted someone else to build them for me.  This forum has been a great source of information for sure. 

HI Mike,

Well-detailed accurate track is one good reason to be a P:48'er!

Are you a member of the Proto 48 Group?

You will find a helpful group of folks there.  

https://groups.io/g/proto48/topics

big train posted:

I have to disagree with Simon here 100%, and will fault the part of Joe's perspective where the value of worth of p48 is only defined by the difference in track gauge.  I will not argue with either that the difference in track gauge is minimal and largely imperceptible, without context.  I will absolutely argue however that the difference in wheel profiles and sideframe positioning is profoundly evident, and much more significant with respect to p48 aesthetics.  I think it is a mistake to focus only on the gauge when considering p48, rather than the combined effect of correct gauge and wheels.

I'll post these pictures, not because I'm trying to convince Simon that he's wrong, but to try and convince Mike that p48 is worthwhile if he chooses that path.  These are Atlas sw9 trucks, both with p48 wheelsets installed.  On the left the sideframes are mounted to the original Atlas gearbox cover, spaced both for 5'-0" gauge and standard 2-rail wheelsets.  On the right the sideframes are mounted to one of the p48 gearbox covers offered by Jay, sized to reflect 4'-8 1/2" gauge and wheelsets with .115" tread wheels.  Too me, the difference is much more than just in my head.

The part where you won't be able to run p48 equipment on 5'-0" gauge track and vice versa is 100% true.  The part where Joe says "that is your choice" is also 100% true and quite likely the most useful observation in this thread.

Jim

If you really wanted to show a pic comparing the gauge you would show one of the wheel sets alone. The MAJOR part of the discrepancy in your image is the side frames. Make all equal but the gauge and talk to me. Suggest you reread Joe's post.

Simon

Simon Winter posted:

If you really wanted to show a pic comparing the gauge you would show one of the wheel sets alone. The MAJOR part of the discrepancy in your image is the side frames. Make all equal but the gauge and talk to me. Suggest you reread Joe's post.

Simon 

My goal wasn't to compare the gauge by comparing any single component by itself.  It was to suggest to Mike that he do the opposite and consider the combined effect of gauge, wheel profile, and sideframe position when making his decision.  It's not you who I'm trying to convince or help or offer advice to.  It's him.

I think Joe's post is clear enough the first time around.  The efforts and consequences involved in adopting p48 standards don't provide value to him, but they might to somebody else.  It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Jim

Cadillac Mike posted:

I think one of my major issues is the size of the room for my layout.  I am limited to 8 feet on two walls which means a nasty 90 degree angle will eat up a lot of my space.  If I had 16 linear feet things would be different.  Looks like I may have to settle for standard O with 30-36" radius curves which limits my motive power to first generation diesels or small steam.  My Russian decapod and C&NW ten wheeler both negotiate this radius just fine but turnouts will have to be either curved or very short which pretty much kills the dream of Proto 48.  While it was a nice thought, it just doesn't seem practical for this type of pike.  I have a few old Roco turnouts from the 70's that are 30" radius.  They look very toy like but have a nice small branch line "esque" profile to them and can be dressed up with under table switch machines, ballast, weeds and paint.  I think Peco may offer turnouts that are a bit shorter than the Atlas #6 as well?

A few guys said I should just switch over to HO but I cannot bring myself to do that.  I have some pretty nice kitbashed buildings and plenty of Atlas, Weaver and All Nation cars that can be easily converted to scale. Some of this stuff dates back over 30 years so I have sentimental attachment to it as well. 

I have used English Peco turnouts and track since I started in USA O scale 40 years ago I also use English Marcway Turnouts in fact I am about to install three Marcway Double slips in my staging area.

On a small layout I would use those wonderful USA turnouts that someone makes (Tom Tee uses them) and maybe handlay the rest of the track.

I change my layout around every few years so building my own track is out besides a layout is time consuming so many other things to do.

A good idea is to try and team up with someone who can help you if you want to hand lay everything, depends on how quick you want some action.

I live in West Australia if your wondering, virtually no USA O scale over here except some English layouts.

Good luck mate, call me offline if you want any alternate advice I do things a little different but everything works and I enjoy what I do that's the important thing.

Roo.

rrjjf posted:

When I first started converting locomotives from 3 rail to 2 rail I conduced 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.

Are any commercial O scale locomotives offered as P-48 models?

If you want to spend your time re-gauging a lot of cars and locomotives that are made to NMRA standards, that is your choice. 

Joe Foehrkolb          

You do beautiful conversion work Joe.   A true machinist.

It's somewhat sad that Proto 48 seems to rub you the wrong way.  

I really don't care that the track is slightly off gauge.   But I do care that in general O gauge wheelsets have a wheel profile and tread width that only vaguely resembles the prototype and that most of the time our rail is much larger than what many railroads used on much of their track.  

I certainly can't tell the difference between P:48 gauge and Ow5 gauge.  

I most certainly can tell the difference between wheelsets and rail since for much of us our O scale "stuff" (at least us steam and transition era modelers) should probably be running on branchline and siding track with code 125 and code 100 rail and "finescale" wheels.  

John,

Nothing but steel really looks like steel.

Jay

I am the opposite of Rob.  I like the looks of a standard O Scale wheelset, but want my sideframes inset and my track gauge to look narrower than my rolling stock.

Good thing - who wants to live in a world where everyone wants the same thing?

I cannot speak for Joe, of course, but I bet he stays away from .115 wheel profiles so he doesn't get trackability complaints.  Don't forget - current standard is still .145 for the wide gauge - as skinny as the experts wanted to go.

All that said, I repeat: Proto-48 is a great idea, and I admire those with the skills to make it work.  If I were king, it would be forbidden to model with an incorrect gauge, at least if it was too wide.

big train posted:

Simon Winter posted:

If you really wanted to show a pic comparing the gauge you would show one of the wheel sets alone. The MAJOR part of the discrepancy in your image is the side frames. Make all equal but the gauge and talk to me. Suggest you reread Joe's post.

Simon 

My goal wasn't to compare the gauge by comparing any single component by itself.  It was to suggest to Mike that he do the opposite and consider the combined effect of gauge, wheel profile, and sideframe position when making his decision.  It's not you who I'm trying to convince or help or offer advice to.  It's him.

I think Joe's post is clear enough the first time around.  The efforts and consequences involved in adopting p48 standards don't provide value to him, but they might to somebody else.  It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Jim

What you can't seem to comprehend is that ONLY figure pertinent to the discussion is the gauge, be it O or P48. Wheel profiles and side frames do not determine gauge. Maybe you should take Joe's board test a few times! If you nail it every time, go P48. Any true model con-noiser will get it every time!

I really don't care what Mike does. Good luck to him whatever the case.

Simon

Simon Winter posted:

big train posted:

Simon Winter posted:

If you really wanted to show a pic comparing the gauge you would show one of the wheel sets alone. The MAJOR part of the discrepancy in your image is the side frames. Make all equal but the gauge and talk to me. Suggest you reread Joe's post.

Simon 

My goal wasn't to compare the gauge by comparing any single component by itself.  It was to suggest to Mike that he do the opposite and consider the combined effect of gauge, wheel profile, and sideframe position when making his decision.  It's not you who I'm trying to convince or help or offer advice to.  It's him.

I think Joe's post is clear enough the first time around.  The efforts and consequences involved in adopting p48 standards don't provide value to him, but they might to somebody else.  It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Jim

What you can't seem to comprehend is that ONLY figure pertinent to the discussion is the gauge, be it O or P48. Wheel profiles and side frames do not determine gauge. Maybe you should take Joe's board test a few times! If you nail it every time, go P48. Any true model con-noiser will get it every time!

I really don't care what Mike does. Good luck to him whatever the case.

Simon

While wheel profiles don't determine gauge, they are actually part of what defines p48.   So it is about more than just gauge.

simon you sound like you need a nap

Yeah - that was a bit harsh.  Simon seems like a good soul, and this is a lively discussion.  Give him a pass.

Joe's board is without reference - as Einstein said, it is all relative.  You have to look at the track as it comes out from under an NW-2, and compare that with a similar prototype photo.  I guarantee you will see it then.