An O scale turnout

[svedblen]

I've been lurking here for ever it seems, so I thougth it was really time that I contributed something. My modeling efforts have been scarcelately, and not consistent when it comes to scale. But eventually I have managed to do a turnout in O scale, of all things!



How come an O scale turnout? Well, it started when I happened to run into Mike Cougill's book Detailing Track http://www.ostpubs.com/the-book-detailing-track/. Since I have always been more or less a nerd when it comes to realistically modeled track, this book really got me hooked. I just had to try this for myself! So I decided to build an O scale turnout, using the techniques outlined in Mike's book, and with the hardware details he recommended.

Some more photos:

[davefoxx]

Wow!  That is purdy.  Nice work!

DFF

[ednadolski]

Now THAT is what I call a TURNOUT!!   

Really that is some genuinely breathtaking work!  Not just on the turnout itself (ties & detailing), but also the weathering, ballast, and surrounding scenery.  Well done indeed!   Mr. Cougill should be proud!

Is that P:48 or OW5?   I usually can tell the difference but in this case I'm having a hard time -- probably because you have done such a fantastic job, it's hard to see the gauge difference.

One question, which parts did you use for the rail braces in the switch area?   I like how you've spaced them out to further reinforce the "light industrial track" look.

Now you need to wire it up, connect it to some adjacent track, and run some equally-worthy rolling stock over it!   

Ed

[ednadolski]

PS - be sure to send those pics into MRH, I'm sure you'll make it into an upcoming "Yes, it's a model"  article.

Ed

[ednadolski]

Is that P:48 or OW5?   I usually can tell the difference but in this case I'm having a hard time -- probably because you have done such a fantastic job, it's hard to see the gauge difference.

Actually, from the flangeways I would have to say P:48.  (I was so blown away I didn't even think to look at first!)

Ed

[tom mann]

This is great stuff.  Where did you get those spikes?

[svedblen]

Thank you guys!

As the turnout was mainly built for the fun of the build itself, and for display purposes, it is hard to say which gauge it really is! I used a Fast Tracks template and a NMRA O scale gauge. The flange ways are however not according to the NMRA gauge. I simple put them closer to the stock rails for a "better" look. So to be frank, I do not know if anything, O or P48, would run through it. If I ever hook it up and buy some rolling stock I guess I need to do some adjustments.

Here is my list of parts used

[Chris333]

Certainly a reason to switch scales. Last year at the Cleveland NTS show there was an "small" O scale NKP set up that had me keep coming back to look.

http://thecourier.typepad.com/alongtherightofway/2014/08/nkp-o-scale-layout-at-the-national-train-show.html

The track had me drooling and at 8x16 feet it looked like something that would fit in my basement. Then I figured out that is basically a 2x4 layout in N scale. It was a close call, I almost sold all my N scale 

[ednadolski]

So to be frank, I do not know if anything, O or P48, would run through it. If I ever hook it up and buy some rolling stock I guess I need to do some adjustments.

The frogs that you list (25B-10 and 25RB-10) are P:48 parts, so those require wheels with the P:48 flange profile and code 115 tread.  But if you built the track to the 5' gauge (1.25" for standard NMRA 2-rail O scale) then you would have to set your wheelsets to that gauge.  Conventional P:48 wheelsets are made for 4' 8.5" gauge (1.177") and would be too narrow for the 5' gauge.

However if you model a prototype that used a 5' gauge, then you would be quite correct to call it P:48, because P:48 actually refers to the scale, not the track gauge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_ft_and_1520_mm_gauge_railways


Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

That is gorgeous work!  The weathering is especially well done.  Do you have any suitable rolling stock you could set on there for a photo shoot?

[svedblen]

Thank you everybody!

... then you would be quite correct to call it P:48, because P:48 actually refers to the scale, not the track gauge.

Thanks for the clarification Ed. But how come gauge and scale comparisons seems to always throw me off track?  (pardon the pun)

Do you have any suitable rolling stock you could set on there for a photo shoot?

No sorry, I don't. But since this was a fun build I might consider getting some and do a little longer stretch of track

[ednadolski]

But how come gauge and scale comparisons seems to always throw me off track?  (pardon the pun)

Yep people mix up those terms all the time.  "Scale" is the size, that is the proportion, as a fraction of the prototype. So 1/48 scale is O scale which works out to 1/4" to the foot, just like N scale is 1/160.  "Gauge" is the distance between the rail heads.  USA standard gauge is 56.5" for the prototype which is 56.5 / 48 = 0.177" in O scale and 56.5 / 160 = 0.353" in N scale.  In any given scale you can have different gauges, such as the 56.5" for standard gauge, and the 36" or 30" which are two of the 'narrow' gauges.

Altho the terms are often used interchangeably, it's not accurate or precise.  Still, the meaning is usually evident from the context.

It is a historical oddity going back decades that O scale ended up using 5 scale feet as its 'standard' gauge (and it still does to this day). But that is inaccurate as a scale representation of USA standard gauge track (and BTW that is for 2-rail track; 3-rail track like Lionel is its own animal).  Proto:48 is the attempt to use the correct gauge, along with accurately scaled wheels and flangeways, but it has always been a small percentage of all O scale modelers.

Ed

[ednadolski]

Certainly a reason to switch scales.

Whatever you do, don't show this turnout to Gary in-person!  I want to see Tehachapi BC finished!   

Ed

[nkalanaga]

The main reason for the scale/gauge confusion is toy train history.  In the first half of the 20th century most trains weren't to any particular scale, but were designed to run on a particular gauge.  Thus, they came to be known by the gauge designation, usually a number: 2, 1, 0, etc.  Once true scale models became popular, the habit of referring to them by gauge was too established to easily change.  This made it even more confusing when narrow gauge modeling caught on, as the "scale" and "gauge" no longer matched!

[GaryHinshaw]

Whatever you do, don't show this turnout to Gary in-person!  I want to see Tehachapi BC finished!   

Ed

LOL.  As beautiful as this track (and your own proto:48 gear) is, I've never been tempted to leave N.  I'm too addicted to running long trains, and to the jewel-like qualities of N.   Progress on TBC is full steam ahead, it's just that it's mostly Tortoises, Vortices (and ballasting) at this stage, so nothing very interesting to post.  But motivation is very high!