Thinking about P:48

 "reading about P:48. I have made no decision to change but I have asked some questions about it. My layout is at a point where I could tear out the rail and use the same ties over again. I could even use the rail unless I change to code 100. The photos that I have seen make me want to consider it. That scale size rail and wheels are truly eye catching. Something to think about "

    Hi Malcolm, I think where P-48 makes the most sense is for a small to medium size layout that won't need a lot of equipment since detailing the cars takes longer and the wheels cost a lot to replace. The track also costs more in time and material due to the need for tie plates and other details. I started to convert my O scale modeling to P48 but decided to go with S scale instead so I could downsize my train space in a retirement house. I still might build an 1895 era P48 layout one of these days if I ever find a suitable loco . If you plan 50 cars or less I'd consider P48 but if you plan 200 cars probably not......DaveB

Malcolm,

As near as I can tell, there are only three reasons to not go P:48.

1) You already possess a large inventory of traditional 5'-0" gauge equipment that would be cost prohibitive to convert.

2) You are modeling a modern era where 70 and 100 ton roller bearing trucks would be the standard for rolling stock.  No affordable alternatives for these trucks currently exists.

3) You take your equipment to run on other layouts that will quite likely be 5'-0" gauge.

Track is definitely not the issue.  Especially if handlaying.  You can make the gauge whatever you like at that point.

P:48 wheel sets are available from NWSL and Protocraft, at a minimum.  Including drop-in P:48 geared sets for the Atlas sw8/9 locos.  If you're into that sort of thing.

You're clearly a guy who is in it for the journey.  A very long, meandering journey at this point.  Why not give P:48 a shot.

Jim

There's a difference between finescale and P:48.  Although the two frequently go hand in hand, P:48 itself is really only about the gauge and the wheel profiles.  Detailing equipment and track to a prototype modeling level is a whole additional step.

I agree in general however about layout size and fleet size.  One of the reasons I have considered P:48 is that it would by default force me to limit the layout scope and make focused decisions about what and how much equipment I would own.

Jim

"There's a difference between finescale and P:48.  Although the two frequently go hand in hand, P:48 itself is really only about the gauge and the wheel profiles.  Detailing equipment and track to a prototype modeling level is a whole additional step."

  Definitely, I model P48 about the same way I model O scale so I'd call it P48 lite. For modern cars I found Lionel roller bearing and Weaver roller bearing work fine with P48 wheels. The lack of bearing between the frame and wheels keeps the overall width narrow enough to look alright from normal viewing distance. Here's a Railgon built from an Ed Reutling kit with Weaver trucks. The end view compares the Weaver truck to a prototype truck.DaveB

I agree that Proto-48 and fine scale are really two different issues.  For most hobbyists the wheel profile would be the killer - larger flanges and broader tread are more forgiving, as the 3-railers will be quick to tell you.  But with your skills, keeping a Proto-48 truck on the track would be child's play.  For me - impossible over the long haul.  I tried it.

I want side frames inside the body, like the real thing.  But I do not want to restrict myself too much - hence 17/64 scale and my small collection of On54.

if one is already a demanding modeler, building as accurate to a prototype as possible, then going to P48 is not a big process if, as mentioned, you don't have a lot of rolling stock to convert. it's really just the trucks and trackwork, since the detailing on the car has already been done.

I'd be thinking about enjoying the vacation more and maybe more pie (no, definitely more pie....) before contemplating making any weighty decisions.

Beautiful loco Erik. Is this P-48 or standard O scale detailed to fine scale? Looks like a PFM starting point?

Butch 

Photo courtesy: (c) Protocraft 

What tread profile is that for the regular O scale wheelsets?  It looks to be inordinately wide. 

That's the problem I have.  Other than a rearend photograph of 172 wheels and P48 on a freight car showing the P48 trucks, I can't see the difference when I'm next to a P48 model or layout.  I know I'm supposed to see it, but I don't.  Seems like code 125 rail, since it is smaller, seems to be wide.

Yeah, Eric - do a photo study of all three.  Put a freight car on top of each, so the differencein width of sideframes can be seen.

I would do it, but my freight cars are about as far from finescale as one can get.  I collect doorstops.

 "but my freight cars are about as far from finescale as one can get.  I collect doorstops."

  So are real freight cars, just tools to haul the stuff , not some detailer's fantasy machines. I've got some old iron too :>....DaveB

Thanks for the input. I like the look but I am not going to pursue it right now.

Malcolm

Yeah, it's a winner Erik!  I saw your dedicated post on this loco and remember it now. I lot of effort and time went into making this model what it is today. 

May I ask what is the asking price? 

Butch

If you are using code 148 track all you have to do is regauge the nmra standard .145 wheels to use 4'8.5" track. That should be all you need to do for the older .172 wheels.

If you go to code 125 track you have to turn down the flange width by about 0.015-0.018 so they will fit in the frogs and rail guards on turnouts and gauging track and wheels becomes much more critical regardless of the tread width. Because many stock wheels ignore the curve between the tread and the flange or make a mess of it they may not track all that well.

If you go down to code 100 you're going to have to use finescale wheels correctly gauged.

Protocraft has code 125 4'8.5" flextrack made by ME and turnouts made by Brad Strong.  O Scale Turnouts also makes code 148 and code 125 4'8.5" turnouts.

I guess this would mean that the code 100 track I have on a siding won't run the wheel sets I have on all of my cars and locos. Funny thing though, I run on that all the time and except for ONE car with rather large flanges (I dunno why) everything runs fine.

I toyed with going Proto 48 when I first got into O scale 2 rail, but discovered very quickly that we would never have a train running if I chose all the work that goes into it.

All of my switches are code 125 hand laid. They end up looking good enough for who they are for.

Malcolm, the two Soo Line stock cars are still in revenue service on the Nostalgia Trip. Thank you for those two cars, in fact I am considering doing one in 1.6 scale as well and using your model as a pattern guide.

BTW, once into 1.6 scale the O scale tends to stay as is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5nGSP67Wao

Have a good day, we sure are.

I resemble that remark.  I have a 1.6" scale Pacific.  I also figured it was way too much work to convert everything, but that was before you could buy bolsters and wheelsets.  Te idea that one could run proper width track without fine scale wheels is a Minton Cronkhite idea, and it is called Q gauge.  I did not learn of that gauge until I had three locomotives and ten cars converted to 1 1/8" gauge.

1.6" gauge is to live steam as 17/64 scale is to O gauge - the proper size for the track width.  I am still trying to figure out G gauge.

P:48 would explode if someone like me would hit the lottery.   Just think of a Shinohara-like (remember them when they broke the code 100 "Snap Track" barrier in HO) line of finely detailed code 148/125/100 P:48 RTR track AND matching turnouts in #4-#20/Wye/curved. 

THAT's what the hobby needs because TRACK has been the #1 problem in O scale since the beginning.  Right after money and space and time of course!!!!!

I am also thinking about going to P48.  Right now I am modeling HO scale.  I decided to build a 2x8 foot module to test out the track and turnout parts. 

While P48 flex track is available, the only pre-built turnouts I could find featured soldered PC ties so the track and turnouts wouldn't have the same tie plate detail. 

"While P48 flex track is available, the only pre-built turnouts I could find featured soldered PC ties so the track and turnouts wouldn't have the same tie plate detail."

   They sell tie plates and other track details so one can build turnouts to match flex track. If you use PC board ties in a few key spots you can glue details on them, they won't match the rest of the ties but in reality no one looks at this stuff after it's been in place a few days so I'd go with whatever is easier for you to work with. In O I usually just spike turnouts but in smaller scales I prefer PC board ties and solder since they can be made stronger and more resistant to gauge creep.....DaveB 

P48 today is a niche inside a niche inside a niche.  It is not plug and play.  Even the high end brass builders don't have sufficient demand for it now.  Key and Kohs just say no, OMI tried it and dropped it.  Midwestern has it as an option but my understanding is my reservations are about half of the total for P48.

With the turnouts you need to have certain points using a material that does not change with the weather, PC strips in key locations for O Scale Turnouts or HDF (Masonite) for the Signature Turnouts.  Otherwise, they WILL be problematic over time unless kept in a very controlled environment.  Wood just shrinks and expands too much with temperature and humidity changes at critical points.

Malcolm:

I declare, you and I must have been separated at birth.  I've changed themes, scales, locales, concepts, etc, etc, ad infinitum more than you'll change a newborn's diapers in a month.  I'm hoping I've got that behind me now as I edge toward retirement... but I can only hope???

Anyway, you're a perfect candidate to add V scale (train simulation via computer) alongside your workbench modeling in order to help you with your wanderlust.  I use V scale to cater to my lust for funnel n' diamond stack locomotives in the 1860-1880s era's as well as other flings and tangents.  Point/Click: Different era, different equipment, different locale, different theme... on and on!

Have fun!

Not me - I figured out early on that 1/4" scale was for me. The track gauge bothered me, so I did something about it.  I am happy.

I have broadened my horizons a bit since that first O Scale car sixty years ago.  I have gone from almost strictly SP to maybe a touch of slobbering Pennsy freak.  I have Hudsons and NYC cabeese.  Challengers abound.  I even have Seaboard and C&O, and one Norfolk and Western J.

I have an airplane I bought a half century ago, and two convertible Mustangs I bought four decades ago.  My house has been paid for, and I am no longer buying stuff - pity the poor folk who have to sell all this.  Even my Greek spouse has put up with me for 35 years!  Not going to change anything.

"I'm hoping I've got that behind me now as I edge toward retirement... but I can only hope???"

   I wouldn't count on it. Since I've retired I gone from O scale to S scale, then P-48, then N scale ,then HOn3, then Sn3, then TT scale,then HO scale, then back to S, and now starting a new layout in either HO or S  depending on how I feel the day I start laying track :&gt ......DaveB

THANKS Mr. Encouragement.

I think I've finally had an epiphany in that I realized that my single biggest bugaboo was building structures, and that even a ham handed ole phart like me has a fighting chance slopping together a credible building in large scale (1/29), so right now I'm playing with large scale trolleys.

Proto 48 is way past my comfort zone. If I did O scale again it would be trolleys, and I'd just pretend that my line was 5' gauge.

Jeff C

If you model a PA line (New Orleans as well) the track was/is 5' 2.5"  --  you'd probably be close enough and not have to pretend,

"Proto 48 is way past my comfort zone."

  I wouldn't write it off too soon, plenty of HO and N models are running around on track with similar flanges/rail interaction. A smaller layout would give plenty of time to build with some care to minimize the problems. A trolley layout with some steam railroad freight car interchange action would be a neat scene. The big advantage for P48 is one can build the equipment to scale without worrying about the dimensional compromises needed to accommodate  wider gauge and larger flanges, so I look at P48 as actually simplifying the modeling instead of making it harder.....DaveB