An O scale turnout

[svedblen]

... 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) ...

It is often possible to tune the gauge on N scale wheel sets. How about P:48 wheel sets? Is it possible retrofit a RTR 2-rail O scale car with P:48 wheels, and adjust them to 5' gauge? Or will this turnout never see a car roll through 

(I seem to already have forgotten that I did this one for looks only)

[ednadolski]

Is it possible retrofit a RTR 2-rail O scale car with P:48 wheels

Yes, absolutely.  P48 folks do that routinely, since commercial P48 trucks are scarce (especially if you want roller-bearing trucks).

and adjust them to 5' gauge?

If you don't mind pressing wheels onto your own axles (not that hard, really) then you can set them to whatever gauge you like.  But I think NWSL sells wheelsets for 5' gauge with P48 wheels.   You can check out their catalog or send them an email & describe exactly what you are looking for.  (Keep in mind the kind of trucks you want to install these into.)

Ed

[svedblen]

Great info. Thanks Ed

[ednadolski]

The NWSL Wheelset catalog (http://www.nwsl.com/uploads/chap3_web_04-15.pdf)  on page 11 shows a variety of code 115 wheelsets for 1.25" O gauge.  There are several axle lengths and shoulder styles to suit whatever trucks you have in mind.

That said, if you really wanted to stay with standard 0-scale 2-rail (1.25" gauge) and avoid all those conversions, it still should be possible to update this turnout without too much effort.  You'd have to replace the frog with a standard O-scale frog (ROW may have these) and re-position the guard rails.  Also check if the clearance thru the points is enough.   Be sure to use a standard O-scale 2-rail NMRA track gauge like this: http://www.micromark.com/nmra-gage-o-scale,9543.html

Let me know too if you would like some standard O-scale wheels for free

Ed

[svedblen]

If I do buy some rolling stock for this turnout I would definitly keep the frog and the guard rails in place. The car would have to adopt to the turnout, and not the other way around. This quote from page 11 on the NWSL catalogue "The /115 is used by some ‘O’ gauge modelers for limited operation of showpiece models on ‘O’ gauged trackage" would apply. 

I think the same would be true if I expand to a small stretch of track on a shelf or something. I would still want appearance to be a (the) major component. On the other hand I might stick to the unprototypical gauge (O-sacle 2-rail) since I assume that things like wheel tread and flange ways contribute more to a prototyical appearance than track gauge.

But thanks for the generous wheel offer.

[ednadolski]

The car would have to adopt to the turnout, and not the other way around.

Totally understood.  I think this should work out great as the starting point for some kind of shelf-type layout, like the Lance Mindheim idea of a one-turnout layout.  Seems you could do something here in maybe 12' - 16' or so, depending on how many cars you want to be able to run.  BTW how long is this turnout?

Also what are your thoughts about a loco?  The Atlas SW8/9 is convertible to P48 with an NWSL geared wheelset (caveat: I have not done one myself) so you would just need the wheelsets re-gauged to your spec.

Ed

[svedblen]

Ideas worth considering!

I do have a 340 cm (≈11') space where I could put up a shelf. The turnout assembly is 73 cm (≈29") but in order to reach the NMRA recommended track center (3 3/4") between the two routes I would need 105 cm (≈41") counting form the points (this is a #10 turnout). No problem with a "one turnout" layout, but if I want a run-around (two turnouts) that leaves only 130 cm (≈50") for plain track. O scale really gobbles space.

On such a length of track I guess it would be possible to fit 4 (40') cars or 3 cars a and short engine. So lets split that length of track into 4 equally long pieces. A possible track arrangement would then be as in the figure, where the triangles represent a turnout and the straight lines a one car piece of track. I have also added a third turnout for a spur.



Some limited operation with a two car train might be possible  Comments anyone?

(And then there is the question of funding. O scale rolling stock is not on the cheap side it seems. At least not when compared to N scale. And the 30% increase in the price of a dollar during the last half year has not done things any better for us on this side of the Atlantic with an interest in American railroad modeling  )

[ednadolski]

GMTA!  I've been thinking of something like that for my GP9.... and your space is almost identical to one that I have too! 

With a #10 turnout you would not need to make the siding parallel to the main.  The angle is gentle enough to keep the diverging route straight and still fit on a shelf.  For example:



This is under 2' deep and can be operated with 2-4 cars.  (The drawing shows more, to give an idea of the capacity.)  An 'arriving' train (positioned at the start of a session) with 0-2 cars will spot the arriving cars and shuffle around the outbound cars, then return to its initial position to 'depart' with 0-2 (different) cars.  The main goal is simplicity, and the opportunity for lavish attention to detail without creating a 'beast'.

I've been playing around with something like this with my P:48 stuff, and one thing that I really find interesting is the fully-operational couplers (actuated by lift bars, not magnets).  They are addictive!    (I also am looking forward to trying the connecting air hoses )

O scale rolling stock is not on the cheap side it seems. At least not when compared to N scale.

Aha but you are now thinking in N scale terms.  In O scale, one car is equivalent to ~4 N-scale cars for the same layout length.  So four N scale cars at say $20-25 comes to $80-100, which is about the same price for an Altas O scale 'Master' series car (Trainman series are less, but sacrifice detail).  Yes locos are pricey but you need only one, and I try to think of it in terms not of the quantity that I can buy, but in how much modelling opportunity each item will provide.  (Despite the impressions from certain hobby magazines, the "less is more" philosophy can ultimately lead to greater overall satisfaction, JMHO  )

Ed

[nkalanaga]

Ed:  I'll probably stick with N, but agree with your points.  If my interest was detailing models, and I wanted people to SEE the details, I would probably go to O.  I'd have very little railroad, but what there was would be big enough for visitors to inspect.

Since I'd rather run trains, in scenery that lets them look natural, N is a better choice for me.  But I do sometimes envy the detail practical in larger scales.

[svedblen]

The main goal is simplicity, and the opportunity for lavish attention to detail without creating a 'beast'

Having though about my proposed plan a second time I realized I had fallen into the infamous model railroader trap of cramming to much track in. Such an amount of track in such a small space would no longer be prototypical. And realism was one of the main goals, wasn't it? Your idea with a single turnout fits the goal better.

Aha but you are now thinking in N scale terms.  In O scale, one car is equivalent to ~4 N-scale cars for the same layout length.

Very true 

[ednadolski]

I've never been tempted to leave N.  I'm too addicted to running long trains, and to the jewel-like qualities of N.

Absolutely.  But seen in-person, the bigger 'jewels' are pretty impressive!   

Ed

[svedblen]

...But seen in-person, the bigger 'jewels' are pretty impressive!

I could not resist and ordered a PS-4427 low side hopper which arrived today. Have to agree, impressive 



As expected, the gauge is "correct" (meaning the the car and the track "agree" on the gauge) but it cannot negotiate the guard rails. So the next step is to order some replacement wheel sets.

But the bearing caps are actually rotating!  Cool!

[ednadolski]

Nice!   Agreed the  'heft' of O scale is hard to match,   And this puppy is going to look good with the code 115 wheels! 

Also for grins here are a few proto pics:

http://www.railcarphotos.com/pix/67/ATSF%20302563_Aragon%20HGO_Matt%20Herson_1982-03-02_67935.jpg
http://www.railcarphotos.com/pix/36/ATSF%20304134_Larkspur%20CO_Kent%20Charles_1993-10-30_36849.jpg
http://www.railcarphotos.com/pix/40/ATSF%20304663_Houston%20TX_Darrall%20Swift_1996-08-00_40002.jpg

Ed

[svedblen]

Thanks for the pics Ed. I guess in the end I will have to have a go at weathering this guy, and then they will come in handy.

I actually found a few myself

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=61286
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2352472
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3873541

[tom mann]

I that that this type of hopper ended up with Wisconsin Central reporting marks.