Atlas "Proto Couplers"

Loading thread data ...
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
Reply to
Bruce Favinger
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!
Reply to
DCC Models
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!
Reply to
DCC Models
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
Reply to
Bruce Favinger
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.
Reply to
Jon Miller
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?
Reply to
Steve Caple
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.
Reply to
Jon Miller
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.
Reply to
Steve Caple
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.
Reply to
Jon Miller
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.
Reply to
Jon Miller
and I'll stick with ol' reliable Kadee, since they don't bend or have a memory. :)
Reply to
me
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
Reply to
Bruce Favinger
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!
Reply to
Jon Miller
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.
Reply to
Steve Caple
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.
Reply to
Terry Flynn

Site Timeline

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.