Atlas "Proto Couplers"

Anyone know what these are?

--
Frank Eva
http://www.trainweb.org/dccmodels/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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. http://user.icx.net/%7Esergent/ to check them out. They say there is a possibility of Type H tightlocks being produced if there is enough interest. Bruce

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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!
--
Frank Eva
http://www.trainweb.org/dccmodels/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:01:51 GMT, Bruce Favinger wrote:

If only there were a way to have steam locomotives with Proto 87 drivers without custom machining prices.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:36:48 -0700, Jon Miller wrote:

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?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:31:12 -0700, Jon Miller wrote:

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 <g>. 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.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:23:56 -0700, Jon Miller wrote:

Do you think re-gauging the drivers (and pilot/trailig wheels) would help any?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

any?< 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

The flanges will be too thick.
--
Best regards
Erik Olsen
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don't bother to look to any of the commercial turnouts to run with scale or even semi-scale wheels! The turnouts are all built with the track gauge of the flextrack and sectional track in mind and that means that the track gauge is set at the maximum allowable tolerance rather than the gauge itself. With the tolerance problems with making parts exactly the right size by casting, this ends up with most of the track ending up actually over gauge tolerances. Then you add in that the idiots that do the molds are also worried about narrow gauged wheels, the back to back dimension is put at it's limit or beyond and you end up with flangeways so wide that they really don't work well. If you build a turnout to the right dimensions, you will be able to run scale wheels mixed in with RP-25 wheels with only minimal problems with the scale wheels running loose in the turnout. I've been there and done that!
-- Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:43:39 GMT, Bruce Favinger wrote:

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.
--
Steve

Product of a mixed marriage: Nickel Plate father, Wabash mother;
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that
tried
87
Spectrum
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.
--
Terry Flynn


http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:18:06 +1000, Terry Flynn wrote:

But can I run DCC on it? <g>

Or out of date control systems?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, beter still you can also run live steam or clockwork.

That's why I don't use DCC.

--
Terry Flynn


http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.