I've recently re-entered HO in the form of Proto:87, and i was wondering if there's anyone else here on trainboard into the higher standard of HO? If so, do ya have any layout/equipment pictures? My current project is converting an Athearn GP38-2 to a high nose NS model. Pics will follow as it reaches completion. [ 19. February 2003, 05:39: Message edited by: RidgeRunner ]
So far, the closest I've come to anything resembling Proto:87 is the use of Kadee number 58 couplers and Reboxx wheels for some of my rolling stock. The 58s are very, very close to scale size, and the Reboxx wheels don't look as "fat" -that is, wide tread- as stock RP25 wheels. ANd they will operate on stock code 100 track just fine.
Most likely you've researched the various groups for Proto:87, but I'll recommend this one I found: Proto:87 group It's a Yahoo! Group devoted to P:87 modeling and modelers. Speaking of fine-scale modeling, I've been toying with the idea of getting my track to look like the wavy, run-down stuff you see in yards & branch lines. Painting the rails & weathering the ties is fine, but I wonder if anyone has ever purposely put dips into the rails, making the cars weave side to side as they roll along (slowly, of course)........ [ 20. February 2003, 01:20: Message edited by: friscobob ]
Friscobob. Do you happen to know how wide the reboxx wheels are? Proto:87 wheelsets are .064" wide overall, compared to most normal RP25's being .110". I also use the KD58's, but I'm leaning more toward the Accurail scale coupler... might even try a cast metal knuckle coupler that's even closer to scale! I have come across the P87 SIG website, as well as the Yahoo group, and have been a member there since I decided to make the jump into scale fanaticism. Making the track uneven sounds tempting, I bet I could get enough weave with a few little shims, or else just attacking the subroadbed with something abrasive to create the needed dips... but of course this would make Kadee (or other fully sprung) trucks an absolute necessity. P87 flanges aren't very tolerant of track imperfections. Maybe I'll try it on a little "test track" and see how it goes.
OK, Out comes the train dummy!!!!! What does proto:87 stand for so I can tell you if I am one. I can't say I have heard of it before, thats what I get for leading a sheltered life! Oh, Frisco my track normally looks like that dosn't everyones???? [ 20. February 2003, 02:46: Message edited by: alkcnw ]
Proto 87 has always been in the back of my mind since I first heard of it around the time MR did a feature on Proto 48 several years ago. But, since it requires strict adherence to wheel and track standards that would require a retrofit of all my rolling stock, I probably will not ever get around to making the jump myself. The closest I've come is purchasing tons of Intermountain semi scale wheels and some of the newer rolling stock models that come already equipped with the semi scale tread wheels. Aside from the compromise I'm making with the fat treads, huge flanges, and ready to use track, I'd say that the type of modeling I do definitely leans toward the Proto 87 philosophy. I like things to be accurate and I'm not above chopping up $100 locomotives to get there. Heck, my latest project, a pair of NS C39-8 locomotives, will end up costing over $200 in parts before paint, and they aren't even powered. The same is true for the SD45-2 I've also got under construction. Once you add one Cannon part, you can't live without more. And I don't even want to get started on my CF7... Am I a fanatic for accuracy, for detail, for paint, for weathering? Yes, but even I shudder to think what the cost of retrofitting my collection to Proto 87 standards would be. Never mind the fact I don't know anyone else who's already committed to Proto 87 and can give me help with the track, or even someone who doesn't question my sanity when I approach the hobby shop counter $100 worth of "little baggies" for that matter. I'm glad the Proto 87 crowd is there, since you guys are pushing the limits of the hobby. The standards you create, the level of detail you achieve, the sheer realism is getting attention and making possible the existence of products like Sargent couplers and many similar advances yet to come. Honestly, I don't think Proto 87's time has come yet, but it will. I would love to see a time when this question gets 20 "yes" responses in one day. Maybe by that time I'll be ready. Good luck, RC Harris
You're right about the Reboxx wheels. Please keep in mind I'm not aiming for Proto:87 standards more than I am for something just a bit below. My hat's off to you P:87 folk in your search for the "real" look. As it is, to me the Reboxx wheels look better than, say, Lifelike's P2K or Kadee's wheelsets. And infinitely better than plastic wheels, by far! I've heard of the Kadee 78s, but I thought they were 58s in a ready-to-use coupler box. The spring on the 58s is not a shiny copper color (which does detract), and since it's a metal coupler, I prefer it over the plastic Kadee wannabes.
Speaking of couplers, I use the Kadee #58 on all new acquisitions since it does look that much more 'real' than the Kadee #5. The separation between the knuckle and the head has always bothered me, but not enough to buy out a year's worth of Sargent's production to replace all those #5's and #58's. Maybe one day I'll convert... I can't stand the plastic automatic couplers out there, either, except for the Walthers dummy couplers. I use those on my unit trains with about a 1:1 ratio. In a typical 36 car coal train, I break the cars in cuts of 4 and add Kadee #58's to the cars on the two cars on the ends and add Walthers dummy couplers to the two middle cars. That gives me the flexibility to shift the cars around in cuts easily and also keeps the cost of couplers down. The dummy couplers have yet to fail (as do the Kadees), they couple well with the Kadee #58's, and they look much more real than any automatic coupler out there (besides the Sargent couplers, of course). As for the bronze spring on the side of Kadee couplers, I used to weather the coupler with paint and catch the spring at the same time, but it was unpredictable whether or not the paint would affect the coupler's operation by effectively sticking the coupler knuckle and/or spring in place. Now, I weather the couplers with ground up chalk and alcohol. It dries as a powder affixed to the coupler and spring and if any chunks foul the spring, they simply break away when the knuckle is opened. So, once the spring is colored the same as the coupler, it's not nearly as noticeable. On another note, if the cast trucks we use in HO offered by such companies as Athearn, P2K, Walthers, MDC, Accurail, Intermountain, Atlas, Athearn Genesis and Kato are made to accomodate the fat tread and RP25 flanges found on these models, are any of them correct in their dimensions? What about diesel trucks such as Athearn's Blombergs? Is there a round-up of the various products out there and their conformity (or lack thereof) to Proto 87 standards? RC Harris
I've heard of the Kadee 78s, but I thought they were 58s in a ready-to-use coupler box. The spring on the 58s is not a shiny copper color (which does detract), and since it's a metal coupler, I prefer it over the plastic Kadee wannabes. [/QB][/QUOTE] Go to www.kadee.com and click on "list by product #" 1-79 Scroll down to the #58 or 78, click and up pops an exploded picture-description of the coupler. [ 21. February 2003, 18:20: Message edited by: locomotive2 ]
Trackwork isn't so hard, some ready made flextrack is suitable (I'm going to use ME C70), and turnouts can be either converted from ME/Shinohara, or you can buy turnout kits. Frogs, flangeways, and distance between the points and outer rails look to me to be the differences.
Hmm, that's refreshing to hear. I have never handlaid track before, certainly never scratchbuilt a turnout, so it sounds like at least part of the battle has been won for people like me. I've seen ME track and it's beautiful, so it's interesting to know it will work for P87. I wonder how long before complete turnouts are available for the P87 crowd.
Ah-ha......almost, but not quite, the same. The 78 with it's own coupler box, scale-size coupler- and it's being shipped out to LHSs now. Thanks- I may have to look into this coupler (and for future reference for yours truly, I've saved Kadee's website in my list of RR favorites.)
As for track, I have a few ME code 83 turnouts in use- they look very nice, and even better than Atlas' offering. Plus, they have the same feature as Peco turnouts- the points "click" into place. Being a user of ME track & turnouts, I recommend both, the next best thing to handlaying. All you would need to do is add the joint bars every 39 feet, "warp" it to somehow represent less-than-pristine trackage, and paint & weather the rails & ties. [ 22. February 2003, 06:35: Message edited by: friscobob ]
This is from KD. "At this time(2/18/03) we have future plans for an offset series of the #58 BUT this will be a long time from now but not the #78". IMO mating the smaller coupler #58 head with an off set larger head may caused the cars to un-couple at the peak of a grade or on very poor un-level track. [ 22. February 2003, 12:21: Message edited by: locomotive2 ]
<font color="336633">I have started to use proto scale couplers and the semi proto wheels from Athearn Genesis, these seem to track very well through Peco code 70 turnouts.</font>
I've used #58's on most of my recent models, but aren't going for semi-scale wheels in a big way yet due to availability. I can walk into most shops that cover US outline over here and pick up a pack of Proto or Kadee wheelsets, but not the semi-scale ones yet. That said, I have some Atlas covered hoppers and Genesis boxcars running about with semi-scales on and no issues (Peco trackwork again) and a newly converted Walthers F40 which has a set of NWSL semi-scales in it. I'm impressed, but my take is that the improvement is not that noticeable in layout conditions on many car types. (Certainly it doesn't make a big difference on an F40!!!) I would certainly consider upgrading things like covered hoppers, (which have wheels right at the car end) with these if they were easier to get hold of over here. I'm not sure I would ever go for P87 proper, if you compare with the UK, the "finescale" OO standards (EM, P4, S4) also correct the track guage to the scale, so that gives a big change, but I'm not yet convinced that P87 is that big a jump ahead of HO done with the finer scale products now available, just more work! Maybe it's just 'coz i'm too lazy!
Don't feel bad Martyn- I have 160-plus (yes, sports fans, only 160-plus) cars, and only about 25 of them so far have metal wheels. To convert them all to metal wheels (Reboxx is my preference, due to the wheel profile) would be expensive . Conversion is proceeding at a snail's pace, but I'm doing so not only for the looks but the fact that metal wheels don't leave as much crud as plastic wheels. Number 58s go on new cars, and are replacements when the older number 5s need replaced (or I replace the plastic couplers I was stupid enough to use, or what came on certain pieces on rolling stock).
