Frank,
Haven't heard of them but Sergeant has a new scale coupler. If you haven't
seen them already they are a true to scale Type E coupler. No glad hand.
They uncouple with a small magnet held just over them. Click here and scroll
down.
formatting link
to check them out. They say there is a
possibility of Type H tightlocks being produced if there is enough interest.
Bruce
Very interesting! I also checked out the Proto 87 store, and found the
incredible Ultimate Trackwork - it seems perfect for anyone who is really
into making their layout look completely protoypical!
I checked them out at Walthers, and they're a 2-piece coupler, like the old
Accumates. May look more prototypical, but I'll take McHenry's for ease of
use any day. Thanks for the info!
I've been looking at the Proto87 too. It certainly looks good. I really like
the wheels. The ultimate track work does look outstanding. As far as track
goes though its hard to beat the look of the ME stuff. After paint and
weathering the appearance as far as realism is better than any hand laid
work I've seen except for backwoods and narrow gauge layouts. Still there is
something very special about nicely done hand laid track that no commercial
track can match even without the individual P87 tie plates.
Bruce
without custom machining prices.<
Not that I know of. Many folks have started using .088 treads (not
quite Proto 87) on wheels but there is no way of fixing that huge (grin)
stable of brass steam to anything other than what's there. Short of
spending a small fortune.
What are the actual (not theoretical) operational problems using RP25
wheeled locos on Proto 87 trackage (with its must better looking narrower
flangeways)? Does anyone have actual experience to report?
wheeled locos on Proto 87 trackage (with its must better looking narrower
flangeways)? Does anyone have actual experience to report?<
No experience but listen and read about it. The following is a very
good write-up on the problems;
========================
The frog isn't the issue. Now that sounds confusing after I wrote that
the
frog is the ONLY issue. The flangeway as defined in NMRA S-3.2 is the driver
for wheel design. S-3.2 requires NMRA S-4.2 Wheel Standard and RP-25 Code
110 wheel design because of the flangeway. RP-25 includes the wheel tread
size and the flange size. Many people aren't aware that RP-25 includes specs
for Proto 87 wheel design...Code 64. Anyhow, the point is that the S-3.2
flangeway size drove manufacturers to produce wheels of RP-25 Code 110 size.
We are now finding that the tire width can be changed to Code 88 size
for better appearance as long as we operate through turnouts with frogs much
smaller than prototype. I suppose one takes their choice...too small frogs
or too large tread size. However, the real problem isn't so much to do with
frt car wheels...we can replace them. The real problem is replacing the
wheels on the things that pull frt cars...steam locomotives for our era. I
build my own turnouts including frogs [ how else to get number 12's? ] so I
could build to Proto 87 specs as easily as S-3.2. The trouble is, I can't
find anyone who will provide me the 600 or so drivers in Code 64 that I
would need to replace those on my Code 110 drivered steam engines. It's
somewhat like the dilemma faced by standard gauge O scale. NMRA S-3.2 for O
scale is still 5' between the rails. Too many wheels have rolled by I guess
to change now. Brass engines were built to a 5' gauge.
But, what in your estimation, other than appearance, would be the drawbacks
to building narrow flangeway turnouts, equipping your freight cars with
.088 tread wheels, and running them behind wide tread locos? Derailments
or shorting, or just less good looking drivers?
Oh well, even HO Code 100 rail looks better than N Code 80 or even N code
55, and they're both miles ahead of O-27 . HO with Code 70 and Code 55
rail in the visible areas looks pretty good even with NMRA flangeways, but
if it could be tightened up some and .088 freight wheels substituted, that
would be a nice step forward.
your freight cars with .088 tread wheels, and running them behind wide tread
locos? Derailments or shorting, or just less good looking drivers?<
I haven't gone to the NMRA site and done the math but if I remember the
NMRA gauge (standard) and narrow flangeways (fine scale) don't work
together.
Might. I think there is a proto87 group and they would offer the real
answers. While I'm using .088 on everything I can I'm not going to do
anything with my engines.
I just checked and there is a Yahoo group named proto87 with 400
members.
Steve,
From what I understand the HO flange itself will be the problem and that
something must be done with the drivers to be able run them on P87 track.
The P87 site in the Journal section does have a long list of Proto:4 drivers
that can be modified and maybe a good solution for a fanatic with the tools.
Actually the driver problem is probably a big reason we don't see more
interest in P87. I'm just going to stay with the NMRA spec's but I might
try out some NWSL P:HO wheels that have the .88 tread and see how they work.
NWSL states they do not recommend them for regular operation whatever that
means. Maybe it means they won't make it through a turnout. Have you tried
these out yet? Bruce
interest in P87. I'm just going to stay with the NMRA spec's but I might
try out some NWSL P:HO wheels that have the .88 tread<
I went hunting for and actually found a set of scale wheels* I have. I
bought them 10-15 years ago to use with contest models.
Using a Shinohara switch there seems to be a lot of slop in the track
gauge (I didn't measure it). Also the complete wheel (tread and all) falls
unto the frog (code 70 track/switch). The guard rails do nothing as they
are a long way from even coming close to the flange.
* I don't remember who made these but for some reason I thought JayBee made
them years ago!
Haven't tried either the .088 tread freight car wheels or laid any Proto 87
track. I really like the look of the narrower tread wheels.
I wonder if there might be a replacement market for Proto 2000 and Spectrum
steamer drivers. It would really be nice if the manufacturers would make
drivers with the facility for optional tires, just like the real ones -
wide load flat flange or Proto 87, just press on and off. (Yeah, and
re-quarter, etc., etc. - a hassle, I know. but that Proto 2000 USRA
0-6-0 would seem to be a great first entry for someone making replacements:
a good size for a small Proto 87 switching module.
replacements:
Steve,
The answer is HO finescale suitable for RTR wheels. The dimensions and
further details are on my web page. RP25 110 and 88 wheel flanges are to
wide for proto 87 track. Don't waste your time with the out of date coarse
NMRA standards, their finescale standard is incompatible with RTR equipment.
I've been running finescale track for about 10 years now, others for much
longer. Superior running and appearance without the need to re wheel
anything using the NMRA minimum back to back wheel dimension. Another
problem with proto 87 is you need to have working suspension or compensation
on most of your models to avoid derailments.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.