Wingate - O Scale Project Layout in Model Railroader

[mdvle]

This O scale project layout is a 4 part series in Model Railroader by Tony Koester starting with the January 2020 issue.

 

Don't know if it is worth buying Model Railroader for, but if you can view it a library (either physical or digital) it might be worth checking out if interested in O scale.

 

It is a compact, one rural town layout measuring 30"x16', and part one is about designing the layout.

 

This is what Tony Koester posted to an email list about the layout and MR series

 

Quote

Just a quick note that the series of four articles describing how I  
built a portable O scale layout based on a specific Indiana town  
begins in January Model Railroader. With the support of several  
members of this list, I built it in P:48, but it is not to what many  
of you would call true P:48 standards with tie plates and so on. My  
main objective was to correct the gauge error and use scale rail and  
wheels -- in this case, code 125 for the main and code 100 for the  
sidings.

The average reader will build it using Atlas O track products or even  
in another scale, so the P:48 aspect is essentially a sidebar to the  
story.

My hope is that it will encourage others who are finding HO getting  
smaller every day to try their hand at O or maybe even P:48. But the  
overall objective is to show readers how to do their homework when it  
comes to modeing a specific time and place, and to show how to build a  
portable layout to take to shows and conventions (this one was at the  
Scale O National in Rockville, Md.) or simply to make it easy to move  
when it's time to relocate.

I'm not sure what the future holds for this project railroad. It's  
taking up space on our three-seasons porch and thus not winning points  
with my wife. I paid all of the costs of building the railroad other  
than donations from helpful manufacturers like Jay Criswell and Jim  
Cantor (track), Larry Stanley (switch stands), and a few others, so  
it's not going into the Dumpster any time soon!

Tony Koester
Editor, Model Railroad Planning
Contributing editor, Model Railroader

 

 

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear RMWebbers,

 

So, will this be an Oscale (P48) re-spin of the "Wingate Indiana" plan in the 1995 MRP?

 

If so, and he chooses to recreate the "linear shelf layout" version,
(the dimensions noted sound awfully like the HO linear shelf layout version x2,
the HO version was a "4x8 sheet, ripped into a 8x2 and two 8x1 staging yards, one for each end of the "run thru")
 
there's going to be some serious $$$ and huntiing to find enough O2R/P48 locos and cars to properly equip it as the original MRP article shows...

 

Will keep eyes open...

 

EDIT: well, Google is a thing ;-)

 

http://usmrr.blogspot.com/2018/08/o-scale-national-finale.html

 

http://updunesjunction.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-childhood-friend-comes-to-my.html

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Edited November 25, 2019 by Prof Klyzlr
Found pics of "Wingate" via Google

[jasond]

Thanks Tony Koester.  So if you model in O, before you do anything you have to find out about O and decide whether Ow5 or P48 is for you.  And it's so big you'll have the wife moaning and you'll need donations to make it affordable (even if you can already afford a three seasons porch.  OK doc, I'll sign-off and take my pills)

 

but not before I tell 'em all that you can pick up 2nd-hand O-scale stuff cheaper than new OO/HO over here

 

and it's big enough to make all the extra detail you've added visible

 

and the layout doesn't need to be twice as big as HO to have the same fun OR MORE

 

no I don't know what I did with the pill-jar top, just get me another cuppa and no-one gets hurt..............  

 

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by jasond

[JAMO]

P48 to begin to model in O scale and the "gauge error". Let me laugh Mister Koester!

 

 

There is just 2 mm of difference for the gauge and a lot of money and time of difference!

 

I think you should make more realistic scenery before to make P48!

 

Conclusion: Mister Koester, you have to stay in your HO world.

 

Sorry for my black-sheep intervention    

 

 

[Regularity]

45 minutes ago, JAMO said:

P48 to begin to model in O scale and the "gauge error". Let me laugh Mister Koester!

There is just 2 mm of difference for the gauge and a lot of money and time of difference!

 

I think you should make more realistic scenery before to make P48!

No, Jamo. It is not just the gauge, but also the wheels and the distance over the outside faces of the wheels, and how this relates to the width over the trucks, which can simply look wrong to the trained eye.

 

O5 will never look this good:

 

Much more information here!

[JAMO]

12 minutes ago, Regularity said:

No, Jamo. It is not just the gauge, but also the wheels and the distance over the outside faces of the wheels, and how this relates to the width over the trucks, which can simply look wrong to the trained eye.

 

O5 will never look this good:

 

Much more information here!

 

I know from a long time ago. For me it's not justified to do P48. You can make all details you want with 32 mm track.

 

Looking at T Koester P48 make me laugh. Sorry

Edited November 26, 2019 by JAMO

[Regularity]

Chacun à son goût...

[GP9u]

Jamo,

 

To me it's great that Tony is exposing O scale to MR's readership for 4 months in a row, even if the layout doesn't meet the standards of detail that you have achieved with your excellent work. That's a lot of exposure to a potentially new audience for O scale 2 rail and P:48.   :)

 

Tony did make the above noted comments for some context: "The average reader will build it using Atlas O track products or even in another scale, so the P:48 aspect is essentially a sidebar to the story. My hope is that it will encourage others who are finding HO getting smaller every day to try their hand at O or maybe even P:48."

 

So I'm just happy to see MR giving that amount of coverage to O scale with the implied endorsement of a modeller who's held in high regard by much of the MR readership.

 

Pete

[JAMO]

21 minutes ago, GP9u said:

Jamo,

 

To me it's great that Tony is exposing O scale to MR's readership for 4 months in a row, even if the layout doesn't meet the standards of detail that you have achieved with your excellent work. That's a lot of exposure to a potentially new audience for O scale 2 rail and P:48.  

 

Tony did make the above noted comments for some context: "The average reader will build it using Atlas O track products or even in another scale, so the P:48 aspect is essentially a sidebar to the story. My hope is that it will encourage others who are finding HO getting smaller every day to try their hand at O or maybe even P:48."

 

So I'm just happy to see MR giving that amount of coverage to O scale with the implied endorsement of a modeller who's held in high regard by much of the MR readership.

 

Pete

 

I agree: O scale 2-RL needs to survive and to develop. I've read articles in Daniel Dawdy's e-zine. I hope O scale will survive.

But I think T Koester's layout isn't a good example to hook modelers to O scale because of his poor scenery. The P48 and his scenery are paradoxical.

For me, P48 is that kind of quality (see below) but it's a lot of work and scratchbuilding, money... I don't think all the modelers want to scratchbuild and to pay so many money to make O scale.

I thin we need to show easy access and moderate prices items to encourage modelers to do O scale.

 

 

http://www.ostpubs.com/p48-is-it-for-you/

 

Sorry to all for my bad way of thinking and the brutal words I used. I don't look for conflicts. I don't like that.

I don't think my work is excellent. I stay modest and I've still seen really better work than mine I have to learn more... it's never finished.

[jasond]

I'm feeling a bit guilty 'cos Jacky's taking the blame for my unusual  outburst.  I know I managed to avoid criticising P48 directly, but here in the UK there are only 3 x P48ers and one of those is selling up because he's even older than me.  Modelling P48, like On2 and maybe S-scale here in the UK can be a lonely path which for some modellers makes it ideal.  Anyway Ow5, original O-scale can be run on local British clubs' O-gauge test track, your mates British layout and occasionally it's on sale in the odd shop or at an exhibition.

 

As the final excuse reason, I've been modelling Ow5 for too long to change all those wheelsets.  

Jason

Edited November 26, 2019 by jasond

[GP9u]

LOL Jason, you're allowed to be a bit grumpy once in a while. After all it's 25 years since you guided me onto the slightly less lonely path of Ow5 in the UK. I think there were about 20 of us back then!  ;)   I've had so much fun with the hobby over the years, thank you!  

 
I am surprised that Tony chose P:48 over Ow5 for a mainstream magazine. And as Jamo said, the scenery is almost laughable compared to what Tony has done in HO over the years. That is disappointing for sure. If he was trying to make O scale seem more user-friendly for beginners surely Ow5 would have been the way to go. But despite all that I do feel it's a Good Thing for the exposure.

 

Here are a few clips from my last ops session which I hope will cheer you up. Yes, it's Ow5, mainly Plywood and Placeholders (still), apart from Mike Culham's paper mill scene, but everyone seemed to have fun!  :)

https://youtu.be/N6HmOFqHB3o

https://youtu.be/gHAy5_C-r-o

https://youtu.be/B1bugnQPrPk

https://youtu.be/4JlmfJFvT1c

 

Pete

 

 

     

 

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, JAMO said:

 

I agree: O scale 2-RL needs to survive and to develop. I've read articles in Daniel Dawdy's e-zine. I hope O scale will survive.

But I think T Koester's layout isn't a good example to hook modelers to O scale because of his poor scenery. The P48 and his scenery are paradoxical.

For me, P48 is that kind of quality (see below) but it's a lot of work and scratchbuilding, money... I don't think all the modelers want to scratchbuild and to pay so many money to make O scale.

I thin we need to show easy access and moderate prices items to encourage modelers to do O scale.

 

 

http://www.ostpubs.com/p48-is-it-for-you/

 

Sorry to all for my bad way of thinking and the brutal words I used. I don't look for conflicts. I don't like that.

I don't think my work is excellent. I stay modest and I've still seen really better work than mine I have to learn more... it's never finished.

Jacky,

 

All things being equal, then P48 will look better than Ow5, but as you rightly say, no point in going P48 unless the layout has scenery to match. Wingate looks very toy like, which is a great shame as Tony Koester can do better than that and it’s a poor advert for the scale.

 

You say you have more to learn: that’s the beauty of the hobby. So much to it, always room for more learning. I have become good friends with Mike Cougill over recent years, whose work you reference there, and let me tell you now that he always thinks he could do better.

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear RMWebbers,

 

I have my own thoughts on O2R vs P48, but any thoughts on the display height and lack of lighting? 

 

Happy Modelling, 

Aim to Improve, 

Prof Klyzlr 

[mdvle]

If this is the way you people in O welcome people to your scale, then few will enter it.

 

1) as he clearly states in the quote I included in the first post, while he went for close to P48 he does not expect anyone else will - that they will use standard off the shelf Atlas O products and other manufacturers.

 

2) perhaps wait and read the articles before offering condescension and criticism.

 

3) if you did 2) you would know that he ran out of time to finish the layout prior to its debut at the 2018 O Scale National Convention.

 

4) this is primarily aimed at a US audience, for many of them that will be close to the minimum they will find acceptable.  The idea of the tiny layouts used elsewhere in the world is still a very foreign concept.

 

5) even with his level of scenery, considering for 99% of Americans O scale means 3 rail O with sharp curves and toy style operating accessories this will be a huge revelation to them.

 

For the Prof,

 

He mentions in the article he already had a collection of NKP O scale stuff that he had purchased over the years.

 

The height of the layout was also a victim of running out of time, he had planned 56" - but he also notes that it worked out for the best as there were a number of attendees of the convention in wheelchairs and kids that entered the layout room and were "excluded" from the other layouts because they couldn't see them.

 

As for lighting, portable layouts in North America don't include lighting so that wouldn't be expected.

[F-UnitMad]

7 hours ago, mdvle said:

....even with his level of scenery, considering for 99% of Americans O scale means 3 rail O with sharp curves and toy style operating accessories this will be a huge revelation to them.

Do have to agree with this - without having seen the articles myself, I'd have said we're lucky it's 2-rail in the first place, and so small in the second.   It's aimed at a rather different audience compared to our side of The Pond.

I'll look out for it myself.

[Regularity]

8 hours ago, mdvle said:

perhaps wait and read the articles before offering condescension and criticism.

I have read the article, and whilst I understand the issue with the exhibition deadline, I think it is poor journalism/promotion to put this in the magazine as is.

[F-UnitMad]

15 hours ago, jasond said:

As the final excuse reason, I've been modelling Ow5 for too long to change all those wheelsets.  

 

If only changing to P:48 was as simple as changing the wheelsets & track gauge!!

I looked into it myself when I decided to rebuild my HO layout in O a while back. I planned to hand-lay my track (which I've done) & there was a comment I read - not directed at me personally, probably not even on my thread - along the lines of "why hand-lay track to the wrong gauge?".

But as noted in this thread there's rather more to it than that - truck sideframes have to be narrowed as well, on locos as well as stock, although to be fair this should be done especially to Atlas diesels* even for OW5, as the trucks are spaced to accomodate 3-rail (pause to wash mouth out) wheelsets, so are waaay out for 2-rail. But it's extra work, time & cost that I don't have enough life for, so I decided to stick to OW5.

I believe that some sort of equalisation/springing of trucks &/or axles is more of a neccessity than luxury in P:48, too, but may be wrong on that point.

Final clincher was that the fine tolerances of P:48 mean I couldn't lay the sort of track I wanted, either (especially without said equalisation).

 

*Current Atlas diesels, that is. The trucks on the old Atlas/Roco F-9 were just sublime - brake blocks right on the tyres, awesome standard for 1972 and many years after, especially compared to then-contemporary British OO diesel models! 

 

I like the 'feel' of this layout here though - certainly manages to capture some flavour of the 'wide open spaces' of the Mid-West, & I like that it's based on a real place. 

[Regularity]

13 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

But it's extra work, time & cost that I don't have enough life for, so I decided to stick to OW5.

That, I think, is the key point.

Like Jacky, you have considered all the issues and decided that on balance (and maybe with at least a hint of regret) you cannot go down the P:48 path.

 

I have a similar but in many ways more difficult decision with my North American S scale stock. The gauge is already correct!

The "scale" (as opposed to toy-like) standards of the NMRA/NASG are very close to using 1:48 wheel profile and clearances, so are much better than most RTR standards in almost any scale. They also accommodate my British stock with only minor difficulties. The American outline stock can often run on British track, too, if it is sprung but it tends to demolish things like signals and bridges, so that's not a big issue.

As I need to re-wheel most of the rolling stock to a consistent standard, then that is not a problem. But reprofiling driving wheels is a tiresome job which frequently requires disassembly of the loco undergubbins, and on many steam locos it is not possible to simply reprofile the existing tyre and to get a scale tyre width: a new tyre is required for that, so I end up with driving wheels that are a scale 6" wide instead of 5.5". Not a lot, but it can be noticeable. (Luckily many prototypes had chunky wheels and this is not so noticeable.)

Trevor Marshall has employed NWSL "code 88" wheelsets on his rolling stock, whilst retaining NASG/NMRA track standards. The problem with the code 88 profile is that it is some strange hybrid designed for H0 (semi-)finescale: more or less the correct width (for P:64 this should be .087") but the flange is both too deep (not a major issue) and too wide for true scale track clearances - .025" instead of .018". That's very tight through a .028" flangeway!

In short, it's almost not worth it. 

 

As an aside, I don't know why the NMRA didn't take a more pragmatic approach to wheel codes (adjusting the check gauge to suit) by using proto style wheel profiles from the next size up for "finescale" and "general" use, e.g. for H0 one would use Proto:87 for P87, Proto:64 for "finescale" and Proto:48 for the RTR market. S would then use Proto:48 for its finescale RTR market, and Proto:32 for coarse table top, and so on - could do the same going down the scales to TT and N and even Z.

 

[mdvle]

6 hours ago, Regularity said:

I have read the article, and whilst I understand the issue with the exhibition deadline, I think it is poor journalism/promotion to put this in the magazine as is.

 

So it's poor journalism/promotion to show prospective new members of the hobby/scale that you don't have to be perfect and build a highly detailed scenic masterpiece?

 

 

[Regularity]

When you are demonstrably capable of doing better?

Yes, I think so.

Just my view, you are welcome to differ, which you obviously do.

[GP9u]

I think the audience for the articles in MR will be mainly North American HO and then N scale modellers with a smattering of other scales and countries. So for me it would be great if some of those readers took a look at Ow5 or P:48 as a result of Tony's work.

 

The O scale market over here is a bit different I've found. The 3-rail O scale toy and collector market (with some scale equipment) is huge but mostly a separate world. I don't think there would be many 3-railers looking at MR. There's a subset of 3-rail scale modellers who build highly detailed scale layouts but use the 3-rail track they already had, and often the wheels, but most use Kadees instead of lobster claws.  Maybe some of them would read MR.

 

One other bit of good news for O scale is that the 2020 O scale convention will be held next door to and at the same time as the NMRA Convention in St. Louis. This is a first, so maybe there's some opportunity for exposure to the broader hobby.     

 

Pete

[jasond]

On 27/11/2019 at 15:46, GP9u said:

...

One other bit of good news for O scale is that the 2020 O scale convention will be held next door to and at the same time as the NMRA Convention in St. Louis. This is a first, so maybe there's some opportunity for exposure to the broader hobby.     

 

Pete

There's a lot of discussion on the Gauge O Guild webite's forum about ... what's it for and how do we get new members?  The Guild's main event of the year at Telford could be held next to Warley, a 2-day show at the National Exhibition Centre near Birmingham and possibly attract new members from OO and N-scale.  It'll be interesting to see if the St Louis O-scale Meet attracts visitors from the NMRA next door.  Must admit I had a very quick look at the blurb, but cost, especially(?) finding accommodation put me off.

Jason

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, jasond said:

The Guild's main event of the year at Telford could be held next to Warley, a 2-day show at the National Exhibition Centre near Birmingham

Now there's an idea!! Especially as it (Telford Guildex) has been making ever-increasing and substantial losses in the last few years.

I've avoided the Warley cattle market for years, now. A joint venture with Guildex could tempt me to pop in for a look.

[DanielB]

To be honest, I've not got a clue what the different between P48 and Ow5, and at this point in my layout build I'm too afraid to ask!

[F-UnitMad]

9 hours ago, DanielB said:

To be honest, I've not got a clue what the different between P48 and Ow5, and at this point in my layout build I'm too afraid to ask!

No need to ask, we'll tell you!!

"0W5" seems to be a recently-invented description for standard O scale track 32mm gauge, at American 1:48 scale, and reflects the fact that 32mm is actually too wide at a scale 5ft gauge, hence '0' (scale) 'W' (wide) '5' (gauge).

P48, or Proto48, is the US equivalent of UK Scale7, with an acurate track gauge of 29.9mm, and dead-scale wheel & flangeway standards to suit.

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by F-UnitMad