The title is simple but can mean different things to different people. My own thoughts on standards has evolved over time.
Standards can be as simple as making sure your models meet NMRA standards, so they operate properly. Or it can be how many details are you going to add to each model before you can call a model done.
To me, the NMRA standards are the bare minimum. If it doesn’t meet the Proto48 standards for wheels it will not operate properly. That is the starting point, for some it is the end point. Those modelers don’t care about all the different details. How many times have you heard them say they only break off anyway, why bother? Maybe that is what’s nice about the hobby, every modeler can make that call for themselves. There is no right or wrong answer, just what’s right for you and your modeling.
This post is more about what I am standardizing on now. It’s not a certain level of detail. Today the Standard I’m using is more basic than that.
This morning, I was attaching the plastic bolsters to a 40 year old Precision Scale model. The hardware package supplied when the model was imported has disappeared in the years since the model was imported.
So today, my modeling standards are something as simple as tapping the holes for a 2 mm screw which are my standard for mounting the bolsters to cars. Same thing for mounting of the couplers to the car body. The tiny hole for the coupler on the model (top photo) is tapped for another 2 mm screw.
Below shows how the same standard was used to mount the PSC Bolster to a Lionel Berwind GLa. Allowing a pair of Proto48 trucks to be mounted completing that part of the conversion. Now I just need to touch up the screw head with some paint and it all disappears.
The Proto48 Meeting Paul Hanson hosted the meeting to a packed house.
Norm Buckhart was the first speaker. He spoke about his current release of 50 foot boxcars. Norm also spoke about his upcoming run of tank cars which are due in late 2022 or early 2023. This run will consists of multiple varieties of cars, most never having been produce in O Scale before.
Norm also spoke of the next run after the tank cars, round roof box cars. The box cars will be imported in late 2023 or early 2024. The round roof box car run will consist of multiple variations of the PRR class X31 of 40 foot boxcars and the PRR 50 foot boxcars in the X32 and X33 classes. In addition will be two classes of 40 foot cars for the Seaboard. I’m really looking forward to the Seaboard cars.
Next to speak were Ross Dando of Twin City Cars (on left) and Jon Cagle of Southern Car & Foundry (on right).
Ross was up first and spoke of his new offerings including a new double etched spike. That brought about some crowd participation and interaction. Ross also mentioned the development of his next release for Twin City Cars, a steel USRA rebuilt car from a USRA double sheathed boxcar. Gene Deimiling wrote about that is his recent blog post. I’m looking forward to that car.
Jon Cagle spoke about his new kit of the Howe Truss boxcar. The new composite side model is similar to the previous release of the steel sided Howe Truss Sand Springs box car. The difference is this is this car is accurate for three or four railroads instead of one shortline railroad with a total of four cars on the roster. Four cars total in 1952 when the were over 800,000 boxcars on the rails, what is the likelihood of one of them going past you trackside?
Jon also mentioned that his tank car kit are back into development. He had samples in the past at shows that looked great and well beyond anything that had been done before. They never became completed kit masters, but it sounds like they will later this year.
As Jon spoke you could hear his passion for what can be done with resin casting. And he also spoke about what others have recently released with resin. How some manufactures need to do more work with their masters BEFORE committing to making molds and casting resin. Without naming names, all that are facing having to sand 3D stepping out of roofs knew exactly what he was talking about.
After the presentations from the three manufactures, Paul Hanson showed off a modern MTH locomotive that had been converted to Proto48. This sparked some discussion about the difference between Finescale modeling and Proto48 modeling.
I have always believed that equating Finescale and Proto48 does more to exclude potential new Proto48 modelers from trying out Proto48. Below is the text of a post I made about the subject in the past on the OGR Board which pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.
“Proto48 is about correcting the gauge of the rails and running with fine wheel widths and treads. There is nothing in the Proto48 standards about truck widths and there are absolutely no “requirements” beyond the gauge and wheel standards.
Just because some Proto48 modelers build finescale models, doesn’t mean that every Proto48 modeler has to build to that level. And I would point out that there are a lot of O Scale modelers who build models to finescale levels also. A Proto48 model does not have to be a finescale model and a finescale model does not have to be Proto48.“
The O Scale Kings Meeting David Vaughn hosted the O Scale Kings meeting. He discussed the current efforts of the group. They working on operating name change to O Scale Central. Acknowledging that some have had issues with the name of the group over the years.
There was discussion of developing new O Scale module standards which would also be inclusive of past modules built to NMRA or Free-Mo standards.
It was also suggested during the meeting that O Scale is positioned to take the lead on developing standards for DeadRail or Power On Board. It was noted that members of the O Scale Kings were working with representatives from the NMRA to help guide that discussion.
While the crowd was thinner than the Proto48 meeting which was held in the same room. I think that was because it was not the Business meeting of the O Scale Kings which was held the next day. I was not able to attend the business meeting.
Last night I was changing out wheelsets on a Weaver N5c cabin car. In about fifteen minutes, I had the trucks off, the three rail wheelsets out, new axels in place and the trucks re-instaled.
Afterwards, I had the old three rail wheels sitting on the workbench next to a Proto48 truck still on the workbench from working on the turnouts from the earlier posts.
Seeing the SIZE of the wheels next to the Proto48 truck explains it all for me. I know why I model in Proto48.
The funny thing is, most Proto48’ers look down their nose at the truck in the photo. It is a Red Caboose truck with no brake shoes and NWSL Proto48 wheelsets with no back of wheel detail installed. All that being said, the truck still looks great next to the three rail wheels and it rolls almost as good as the expensive trucks with roller-bearings on each axel.
You mileage may vary, and that’s fine. Enjoy the hobby.
My first impression is good. I do see a couple of things that I will want to improve.
For now, I just want to look at them and enjoy them.
Follow-up to this post. About two years after this was posted. I was approached by a friend who was regretting not buying a pair of these. I ended up selling these models to him. He did not mind the things I saw wrong with the models at all. These have since been replaced with Overland FP-7’s working their way through the paint shop.
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?
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.
A lot going on here, mostly life and work stuff, not much new with the layout except that benchwork is moving forward again. I did manage to get away to the Museum in Hamburg this month. It was a great visit! Answered many questions and generated just about as many new ones.
For the people that have asked about Reading Freight Cars Volume 2 & 3, let me just say we are talking with Reading Tech to convert the materials to be published in the Bee Line. More on that as it progresses.
I also pulled out a model project that I started with a friend about ten years ago. After a couple of hours working on it again, it reminded me why I’m in the hobby. It was also wake-up call about the layout. I can’t let the layout get in the way of what I enjoy most about the hobby, which is building freight cars.
The Baldwin drawing for the walkways over the radiator openings on the AS-16’s
How many times have you heard a modeler spew something about a model, that you know to be dead wrong? And you know darn-right well they have not researched it at all, they are just regurgitating something they heard another modeler say. Did that person look at what they were talking about or did they just spit out what they were told? And once it has been repeated often enough, everyone believes it.
One of the reasons I moved some of my modeling interests away from the PRR was the number of times I heard guys comment about the Sunset H-9’s. They all said the same thing about the belpair slope. Did anybody question what research the first guy who said that looked at to make such a statement? Most guys have pointed to the line diagrams of the class. Well these drawing while they are railroad drawings are not accurate for boiler shape. Did anybody research it on their own? Did anybody look at it against photos? Nope they all regurgitate it on que, just like Pavlov’s dogs.
What I have found is that most people that tend to do this have NEVER done any research on their own. I’m not talking about opening a Morning Sun book and believing the fiction that is their captions. I’m talking about assembling a pile of photos (with dates) and looking for the details and when they change. I’m talking about digging through company records at a museum or a private collection. I’m talking about actually going out and measuring a freight car or a real building. I spent most of a day measuring and photographing the PRR GLe I found in South Amboy back in the early eighties. Or even just doing a full photo study of a car with a hundred or so images not just the three normal images in a photo study; the Three Quarter, the End View and the Broadside.
Even the best authors can miss things. Case in point, one of the Reading Myths, the after-coolers on the FT’s were put on during a shopping in 1956. In a recently published book, on page 111 that statement was printed, there was a photo on the bottom of page 112 with a 1950 date with the aftercoolers on the locomotive skirts. I first thought maybe there was a typo with the date. But most likely not, as the hand grabs were still black and the safety grabs over the windshields and on the nose are not there. Also on page 110 there was a 1954 photo with the after-coolers also.
Just because it is published does not always mean that it actually was!
So either accept what the manufacturers produce and say is right, “nobody will see it anyway” or get off you ass and do some research.
Good prototype modeling starts with good prototype information.
I cut off the steel tire from the Sunset drivers. It was a simple matter of cutting most of the way through the tire. This was done slowly and I kept checking my depth so that I did not cut through the tire and into the driver center. Next I inserted a screw driver into the slot. Give a little twist and the tire breaks free and there is no damage to the driver center.
Matt Forsyth, made the suggestions for this procedure and it worked great! Thank you!
This is the second time I’ve used a hacksaw on an O scale model. I have to say, it is a bit unsettling at first. But the after the first couple drivers, the rest of the 16 drivers went quickly and without trouble.
Next step new tires…..
Sunset 3-rail driver clamped in the vise
Using the Hack Saw to cut the tire.
The cut is not all the way through the tire.
Insert a screw driver into the slot and twist. The tire will break free.
I did the same thing to the blind drivers. You can see the crack in the tire.
There was a question over on the Reading Modeler site about the Reading Poling cars so I thought I’d post this image. It was scaned from a small print, but it shows the poling car working on the back of 1633. It appears to be built from a Tender frame. It has Tender trucks under it still. The side boards are similiar to the configuration of the steps behind the pilot beams on steam locomotives, only they have a long board attached to the length of them.
I’ve changed my mind a couple of time on which hill I was going to model. If I had stayed with Tamaqua to Mahanoy Tunnel this would have been at the top of the “to build” list. I’ve seen this in many of the yard photos from the top of the hill.
