There is always talk about what size rail should be used to model prototype rail of different weights. Some time back, I picked up a document published by the AT&SF Railroad which had different sizes of rail for different manufacturers listed. It contains the dimensions and sizes of rail made by Illinois Steel Company, Carnegie Steel Company, Pennsylvania Steel Company, Bethlehem Steel Company, Lackawanna Steel Company, Cambria Steel Company Colorado Fuel & Iron Company and Dominion Iron & Steel Company.
In page 8 above, the sizes for rail from the Pennsylvania Steel Company are listed in the left hand table. There are eight different lines for 100 pound rail. The base width ranges from 5 inches to 5.5 inches, the height ranges from 5.5 inches to 6 inches and the tread width from 2.75 inches to 3 inches. The one listing for a 135 pound rail has it’s base at 6 inches, it’s height at 6 inches and it’s tread width at 3 5/32 inch.
So how is someone going to tell the difference between 100 pound rail and 135 pound rail when one sample has the same height (6 inches) only a quarter of an inch in base width difference, and 5/32 of an inch difference in tread width?
There was some talk on the Proto48 Yahoo board today about rail sizes and widths. I picked up a document put out by the AT&SF Railroad a while ago. I thought I’d scan it tonight and post it to add to the discussion. Above is page 2 of the document below is a link to the scan in a PDF file.
It contains the dimensions and sizes of rail made by Illinois Steel Company, Carnegie Steel Company, Pennsylvania Steel Company, Bethlehem Steel Company, Lackawanna Steel Company, Cambria Steel Company Colorado Fuel & Iron Company and Dominion Iron & Steel Company. There is no date on this document.
One of the things I found interesting was that a number of the different manufacturers had different sizes to the rail even though they are the same weight.
Protocraft’s number 8 right hand prefab turnout – Photo from Protocraft website
Protocraft’s number 8 left hand prefab turnout – Photo from Protocraft website
I was on the Protocraft site last night and noticed a pair of new prefab turnouts have been added to their line. Protocraft is offering both a left and a right hand turnout built with Parts from John Pautz of American Swith and Signal. The description on the site explains what they are:
Prefabricated turnout ready to install. Compliments Protocraft’s Code 125 flex-track. Built by Brad Strong of Signature Switch Co for Protocraft. Right-O-Way Code 125 rail and highly detailed #8 frog and track parts cast in nickel silver from patterns by John Pautz. $99.95 each, plus shipping.
This is great news for those folks that have thought about modeling in Proto48 but did not want to build their own turnouts. One more excuse not to model in Proto48 removed.
I plan to build my own turnouts. I don’t find it difficult and I enjoy building track. So these turnouts are not a product that I’ve been waiting for. But as a Proto48 modeler, I’m very glad to see them produced.
Detail of the Main Line 89.25 Quarter Mile map which starts just West of the grade crossing in Schuylkill Haven.
I had the pleasure this week of spending a day off from work at the Reading Railroad Heritage Museum. I went looking for answers to some questions as always. Some of the questions have been answered, most of the answers just spark more questions. I’m glad research of the prototype is one of the things I enjoy in the hobby, your mileage may vary.
If you have read this blog for a while, you know, to say I’ve had trouble picking a location to model is an understatement. O scale offers the modeler a chance to see the details they are adding to their models, but is also requires a different approach to modeling on the layout then some of the smaller scales offer.
I’ve had to work through the ideas that were influenced by the smaller scales. I’m now fully embracing the idea that you need to be closer to the models with O scale and that some of the towns in my modeling area, no matter how interesting, are either just too big for my space or require too much compression to fit into the space I have to model within.
Detail of map showing grade crossing on Union St. East end of Freight house shown.
This Spring, I started looking at Schuylkill Haven. It is still in my area but it is over on the “mainline.” I had some questions about the track arrangements in town. These are now answered. I had questions about the freight house and station area, these too are now answered. So now it’s time to get back to the benchwork and the layout.
Anybody who has ever spent any time South Jersey during the Summer months knows about the three “H’s” Hazy, Hot and Humid. That sums up our normal weather for June, July, August and part of September. Painting models in that kind of weather is not always a fun experience.
I try to limit my painting to the nicer days of the year which are usually found in the Spring and Fall. Sometimes that can interfere with other things I like to do on those kinds of days, like going out and doing some photography.
This Summer started out the same. July had a week or two in a row with no break of the H-H-H and 90°+ heat. But August has been a little different. I’ve been able to paint a few models, four hoppers two weekends ago and two gondolas this past weekend.
John Dunn and Rich Yoder held another fine O scale train show in Strasburg, PA today. The weather was great for a Lancaster County Summer day. The humidity was not as high as it often gets in August and the temperatures were in the mid 80’s. The show was very well attended, someone mentioned they thought it was one of the best attended Strasburg shows. It was nice to see and talk with so many friends again.
The selling seemed to be brisk during the whole day. Unlike some shows were it falls off in the middle of the morning. My friend whose table I placed some stuff on seemed to do well. I moved some used parts and O scale trucks.
EY Model of a ATSF SK-2 stock car
Rich Yoder had his recent run of ATSF BX-3 and BX-6 on the table and a couple of the Sk-2 stock cars. They looked nice. He did have information on the table about a possible run of Bethlehem Steel Gondolas.
Joe Foehrkolb from Baldwin Forge and Machine was there and he had some tire blanks for my N1 conversion. Hopefully that will get that project moving forward again.
They set up one isle in the fire hall with the first three tables being Jim Hawk, Mac McEwan and Carl Jackson in a row, sort-of a Proto48 corner. It was nice to see those guys again at the show.
Jack Hill was at the show walking around. I spoke to him for a short time. He has continued to work on his railroad, but has not posted much on his blog recently about what he’s done.
The new magazine is the product of Glenn Guerra (of Mullet River Modelworks) and Dan Dawdy. They plan to publish six issues a year. It is FREE to the reading public, they make their money off the advertisers in the issue.
Their first issue is up and worth a look. It reads more like a traditional magazine than an ezine. So readers should be able to navigate inside it without any issues.
Good luck gentleman, I wish you well on this new venture.
In my last post “What is Proto48?” I made the following comment:
My modeling belief has always been that no mater what width the gauge, the model should be detailed as accurately as time, prototype information, modeling skills and money permits.
We can all see the improvement of our modeling skills just by looking at some of our old models. While looking at your earlier models can be a nice trip down memory lane, now that the models are to be placed on the layout together with your newer work, some of the warts on the older models might start to show.
I conducted an experiment one night at the club, I placed eight cars in a train. Five of the cars had full brake detail and separate grabs, one car had no brake detail and molded on grabs, the other two were older USH hoppers with their end exposing that they only had the three brake appliances with no piping between them. They were all nicely painted and weathered. I ran them on the layout for a while, everybody who saw the train run thought all the cars were super-detailed. So what does this mean? Most people don’t look carefully enough? Does it mean we don’t need to model these features? It means you need to model to the level that makes you happy and not worry if it’s up to someone else’s standards.
Realize these are my standards that I’m shooting for, not anybody else’s, just mine. Not a Proto48 standard, just a George Standard. For new models, it will set the bench mark for the level of accuracy and detail required. For the older ones, some upgrades might be in order. Of coarse this is a changing list as new products development can bring new levels of detail or realism.
Here is what I have so far:
Prototype of model included in my January 1952 ORER
Painted as the car would have looked in the Summer of 1952
Weathering applied to car for the Summer of 1952
Models to be detailed for the Summer of 1952
Reweigh Dates to comply with Rule 11 AAR Code of Car Service Rules
Brake Equipment and Rigging
Wheels and trucks to comply with NMRA Proto48 specs
Polished tire treads
Weight standards
Kadee couplers, correct height, without trip pins
Prototype of model included in my January 1952 ORER My modeling is set in the Summer of 1952. I arrived at this date because of a couple of reasons. First the major classes of Steam locomotives I wanted to model, K1, N1 and T-1’s were all still running at this time. Also, this was the last Summer that the Reading G-3’s ran on passenger trains in Pennsylvania. At a point in the early Fall they were all shipped over to the PRSL in South Jersey to finish out their service lives. They were replaced with the new GP-7’s that arrived that Summer. Since I acquired a nice SGL G-3 in my trades of surplus PRR models, I’d like to see it pulling my passenger trains.
Painted as the car would have looked in the Summer of 1952 Rather self explanatory but it has meant the selling of some finished models which were painted in paint schemes from 1954. I know I could have stripped the cars and repainted, but it has been easier to sell off the finished cars and buy new unpainted cars. Besides I hate stripping paint off cars.
Weathering applied to car for 1952 Again, a simple idea but think if a car was built in 1952, it’s going to be very clean. Most often we weather the cars too heavy because that’s how we remember them last in the 70’s ready for scrap. On locomotives, the AS-16’s are less than a year old and the DB equipped AS-16’s started arriving in June 1952, they are less than a moth old.
Models to be detailed for 1952 These types of dated details weather they are paint details or appliance details for the equipment help set the time period. Some examples are, the safety grabs on the noses of the EMD F-units. They were changing throughout the 1950’s. They went from not there at first to some there and painted black, more applied and painted yellow.
Reweigh Dates to comply with Rule 11 AAR Code of Car Service Rules These can be found in the ORER’s. I’ve been modeling these since before my club days. They govern how often a cars light weight had to be weighed. Tony Thompson wrote an article in the April 2011 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman (RMC) which he talks about on his blog. He explains the rules well in the article.
Since my modeling efforts prior to this had been set in 1956, this has required the changing of almost all the reweigh dates on my cars.
Brake Equipment and Rigging With my first models, I was happy just to have something under the car. The major appliances were enough. Then I saw what could be done. Full brake piping with equipment positioned as per the prototype. It really does not take too long to build and really sets off the models.
Wheels and Trucks to comply with NMRA Proto48 specs Good running equipment is the difference between having fun operating on the layout or having to force yourself to work on the layout. Good running equipment requires that all specifications for wheels and track are within the NMRA standards.
Polished Tire Treads I always liked the look when I saw other modelers do this. Once I did this to a few of the trucks, I wanted to do this to all of them. I’m not sure if I will have any issue of the treads rusting in the South Jersey humidity. If they start then maybe they just need to be rolled on the layout more.
Weight Standards I’ve always thought the NMRA weight standards were a little on the heavy side. Since I’m running some very heavy diecast hoppers. I can’t have the cars too underweight and still expect them to operate without trouble.
Kadee Couplers, Correct Height, Without Trip Pins The Kadee 700 series couplers are my standard. Most of my models are equipped with the older version with the spring on the outside. A little paint and the spring disappears. When I work on an existing car, I am changing them out for the new couplers. I’ve tried Protocraft couplers, they are beautiful and work nicely. They just aren’t for me.
Air Hoses Air Hoses are on the standards list since all the prototype cars had them and not all the models that have been made over the years have had them.
I tried the magnetic working air hoses that Ben Brown wrote an article about in the Jan/Feb 20009 issue of O Scale Trains explaining how he made working air hoses. I got the air lines to work but I found it to just be an extra point of frustration. They are nice when they work.
All that being said, these are MY standards. They are not meant to be anybody else’s standards. Nor are anybody else’s standards meant to be mine. We are all supposed to be having fun after all.
What is Proto48? That question has been a topic of debate with Proto48 modelers for a number of years. Basically there are two schools of thought on the matter. The one thought is that it is just a set of standards to correct the gauge mistake in O scale and also make the wheels close to the prototype in size. The other side of the debate thinks it’s more than just gauge, it’s really about finescale modeling throughout the model. Usually when one of these debates rise up it ends up in some foul words being exchanged, some hurt feelings and a few PO folks. None of this is good for anybody.
Lets step back and take a look at the history of Proto48. It has it’s origins in trying to make the gauge and wheel width more accurately depict the prototype. A very nice history of Proto48 is presented well on the Proto48.org website. But one could also argue that it was understood that these guys were modeling to finescale standards with the rest of their models, they just got tired of placing out of scale trucks on their models.
Some of my Reading open hoppers that I displayed at the RPM meet.
My Experience with Proto48 I am proud to be called a rivet counter. I actually have counted rivets on my models and on the prototype drawings I have done for RMC. When I first converted to 1/4 inch modeling, the realization that my models had trucks with the incorrect gauge bothered me. Then I heard about Proto48, and I had to be a part of it.
After more than ten years of happy Proto48 modeling, I made the well meaning mistake of joining a local model railroad club. Their pushing and prodding convinced me to “just change out my trucks” on my proto48 models and “I could run my models on their layout.”
My model railroad club experience has given me a lot of things (not all good). For this conversation, let’s just say it made me realize that I was not happy with my same models when they had O scale trucks under them. Even though my models had the same level of detail (because they were actually the same models). I was not satisfied with their appearance. I responded better to them with Proto48 trucks under them. After leaving the club, it did take me a few years to figure this out.
Modeling in regular O scale is much easier than modeling Proto48.Open the box and place the model on the rails. Instant gratification at it’s best. You don’t have to convert, upgrade or do anything to your models. Or do you?
I started measuring and comparing the models being produced against the NMRA Standards. I found out that not every manufacturer builds their models to the same set of standards. Once I began to see that almost none of the models were within all the NMRA Standards and that they needed to be modified anyway, it made even more sense to model in Proto48 again.
Matt Forsyth’s SFRD RR-21 Steel Reefer as displayed at an RPM in Malvern, PA.
Which Proto48 Camp Am I In? I always believed I fell close to gauge side of the debate. I guess that had more to do with hearing guys quote Proto48 standards for one thing or another to manufacturers. None of these “quoted standards” existed. Only the “Gauge and Wheel Standards” exist. So I took more of the stand that Proto48 is just a wheel and track standard and a lot of ego thrown in also.
As I continue to focus my efforts to model the Reading, I’m finding that I’m beginning to lean to the finescale side of the fence. My modeling belief has always been that no mater what the width the gauge, the model should be detailed as accurately as time, prototype information, modeling skills and money permits.
The NMRA Proto48 standards are just a set of track and wheel standards. Modeling in Proto48 has opened my eyes to what I thought O Scale could and should be when I first converted to the scale. It has to do with making every detail as accurate and well as you can. That means research of the prototype, mastering new modeling techniques and generally just pushing your modeling skills beyond their current limits.
A wonderful scene on Warner Clark’s layout.
Is Proto48 Just a Set of Track Standards or Is Proto48 Finescale Modeling? I don’t think the modelers on either side of the debate are wrong. What we have are just different approaches to modeling. The choices a modeler makes about the detail level of their models does have an effect on choices available for their layout. But these modeling choices are personal choices, and not a mandate of Proto48.
For me, I can model in Proto48 without modeling to finescale standards. I have found out that I can’t model to finescale standards without modeling in Proto48.
Two Intermountain/Protocraft and one Red Caboose/NWSL trucks
Protocraft and RY Models have imported some great Proto48 trucks. I like them a lot and I use them under a lot of my freight cars. We need a lot more types of trucks to start to get close to the variety of trucks the prototype had.
I can’t afford to place them under all my cars, maybe if I hit the lottery. I have been using two different manufacturers types of O scale trucks converted to Proto48 under a number of my cars.
Intermountain/Protocraft truck with 33″ wheelsets.
Intermountain/Protocraft Truck What a great truck! When you combine the Intermountain truck with their metal wheelsets, it is one of the best rolling O Scale trucks available. But what about Proto48?
The protocraft wheelset with the tips of the axels filed. You can hardly see it.Intermountain/Protocraft truck combination with 33″ Rib-back wheelsets.
I have also tried the 33″ double-insulated rib-back wheelset in the IM truck. They fit and roll nicely but have a little side-to-side play. I’m not totally sold on them yet. I am testing them under a model currently.
Caboose/NWSL trucks
Red Caboose/NWSL Truck Many O Scale modelers will complain to you, these trucks don’t have the same axle length as the IM trucks. That is actually better for the Proto48 conversion, the NWSL Proto48 wheelsets drop right in and roll great with their pointed axle on Delrin truck side frames. Red Caboose had a Bettendorf and a T-section Bettendorf truck available.
NMRA Proto48 Specification I measured the wheelsets and find the Protocraft wheelsets are within NMRA spec. Here are the measurements and the measurements are displayed on the NMRA S-4.1 Proto48 Wheel Standards page.
Check Gauge
Back to Back
Wheel Width
Flange Width
Flange Depth
Specification Range
1.124 1.134
1.100 1.112
0.115 0.120
0.024 0.028
0.022 0.026
NWSL 33″ Freight Wheelsets (no backside wheel detail)
Protocraft 33″ 50-ton ARA “D” rated axle double insulated, one wear tread
1.129
1.106
0.115
0.025
0.024
Plus and Minus… Opinions On the plus-side:
The biggest PLUS I can say about these is they are inexpensive.
The trucks roll great!
The trucks do look very nice even without all the brake detail.
Both have casting marks on the trucks side frames.
I already had these trucks on the shelf.
There is no issue with shorting on metal cars because the trucks are plastic.
On the minus-side:
The NWSL wheelsets are not always 100% within NMRA spec.
The NWSL wheelsets do not have backside detail on the wheels.
Both the IM/PC and the RC/NWSL have very little back of journal detail.
I hate assembling the Red Caboose trucks. I have never been good at inserting them damn springs.
The Protocraft Rib-Back wheelset does have a little side to side play when installed in an IM Truck.
Some Protocraft wheelsets need a small point (not really a point as much as knocking off the blunt end of the axle) filed onto the axle.
A small pile of Intermountain trucks waiting for me to order more Protocraft wheelsets.
Overall: The minuses have not held me back from using these trucks for my Proto48 conversions. The cost savings can be even higher if you find some NWSL wheelsets at very low prices at the train shows, since a lot of Proto48 guys dismiss the NWSL wheelsets.
The Red Caboose/NWSL is my standard truck under my converted Lionel Offsets Twins, which currently numbers about 35 cars. The trucks do not have any brake detail at all and the NWSL wheelsets do not have backside of wheel detail either. But they are an inexpensive way to have a great rolling truck. And I feel that is more important under such a heavy car as the Lionel Offset Twin.
The Intermountain Truck was included in every kit they produced. So most O scale modelers should have a good supply on hand from that alone. I was also able to buy 50 pair of trucks for a special price from a local vendor. When combined with the Protocraft Bulk Wheelset Price, it puts the price per truck under $17 each. Compare that to the $52 dollar price for imported trucks. That kind of savings adds up quickly if your freight car fleet is larger than a dozen cars.
Don’t get me wrong, the current imported Proto48 trucks are great! We need more varieties of them. I try to support our Proto48 truck suppliers with my purchases almost every train show I attend. These two truck options help keep the costs of modeling in Proto48 down some. They also provide an easy way for new Proto48 modelers to try proto48 out and see if it is for them.
