Prof Klyzlr Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Dear RMWebbers, (as a starting reference, and to get up-to-speed with the context, check the O Scale Trains "Track special" by Mike Cougillhttp://www.ostpubs.com/Downloads/Weathering_Track.pdfhttp://www.cougillstudios.com/handlaid_track.pdf ) From another thread, where the subject of fidelity of track details and approach popped up, Andy R responded: As far as "getting up and running", that seems to be the instant gratification goal of every US model magazine, I've ever seen, regardless of the end results. From their point of view it seems that track is merely the picture frame needed to hang the art on the wall, not part of the picture itself. My opinion, FWIW, is that Mr Cougil's work is the normal par for the course, if one is taking the trouble to work in Proto:48. It's a large enough scale to include every detail in full 3D. I strive for that same realism on HO and Proto:87, by using some thoughtful tools and components to remove the extreme skill and make it available for anyone else who wants to model that accurately, but can't otherwise. So yes, we do have both kit and RTR self-gaurding frogs in HO, that will convert almost any RTR turnout. But I didn't notice any reference to them in Lance's article. And the magazine editors were very upset that the difference was mentioned in the reader's forum. Andy However, and please note that I largely agree with Andy R's comments above, I'm prompted to ask,how do we explain the experience of Greg Amer? http://www.gregamer.com/index.php/2013/12/29/back-to-big-wheels/ He obviously had the motivation and want-to-make-it-happen, and from the outside-looking-in, it certainly didn't appear to be due to lack of skill, effort, or want to learn "any new method required",so I wonder what went soo wrong? As a promotion for P87 as a do-able approach, Greg's publicised efforts (and resulting turn-away) unfortunately didn't/doesn't do the cause any favours,(Greg was active on the MRH forum, and was considered one of the leading "actually doing it for real, and showing the pics to prove it" exponents of P87 track and detailing), I know a number of modellers were sitting back watching Greg's experience with a "if he proves it can work, then I'll give it a go" thought-process, and I've heard similar thoughts in response to Iain Rice's "Roque Bluffs" percieved "back away from P87".(MR project layout from a few years ago...) Maybe a "Chicago Fork" style (or slightly larger) P87 promo layout,(IE far more developed than just mechanical proving-ground "track on plank",but still "within space/$$$/scope range of average modeller") might get more traction in the wider modelling community?(assuming the aim is to "grow the market segment"?) Happy Modelling, Wondering why P87 has such a hard time getting "publicly promote-able results",Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Don't really care about P87. Andy is really hyper focused on track. I use prototype switch diagrams to get the geometry right. But I figure track is the same as cars, the 3 foot rule applies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 John, See my reply to you in the "Contemporary Shortline" thread ('cos I cannot be bothered right now to re-write it). It may help? I'll try and find the missing video tomorrow, I'm too tired right now... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Prof, There are two different answer categories to your question. One for the the people who haven't thought about Proto:87 at all and one for the similar situations of Greg Amer and the Roque Bluffs "article". Since I don't have time to write a novel this evening, here's just the anwer to the first category. I''ll expound on the latter category later As Dave just posted. Most US "model railroaders" don't care whether P:87 exists or not. They don't need to. Ditto for P:48 or FiNe. They don't have the glaring gauge discrepency that 00 has, that spawned EM and P4 and opened the door to greater prototype comparisons. They didn't have the much cruder than today beginnings of HO such as Hornby Dublo, Trix Twin and the early Tri-ang efforts to reel back from. The NMRA standards from day one, were sufficently "fine", that the differences aren't noticed by a population, 99.5% of which, does not spend their mornings standing on a cold draughty station platform, forced to look down at real track for 20 minutes, five days a week, while waiting for the 8:16 to Waterloo to arrive. Also as posted, most US Model Railroaders are users of multiple models in quantity, rather than modelers of individual items in ultimate realistic detail. Ask a US modeller to describe his home layout and the first answer he'll give will be how long his "main line" is, in hundreds of feet, and how many yards it has. And then he'll say that he wanted it longer but, the basement wasn't big enough, and so he can only handle 8 operators with one dispatcher. When you are looking at an actually 30 ft long model of a whole freight train with two locomotives pulling 25-50 cars that took half an hour of continuous shunting to put in the required order, and was late getting out of the 8 tracks wide yard, you are already 6 ft and more away from the action. So studied close up viewing is neither convenient, nor an appreciated use of your time. The US "fun" part of model trains, is for the magazine readers, "operations" using "teamwork", not the individual, relatively anti-social activity, of quiety and doggedly creating a single model masterpiece over a very long period of time. There is an uncanny similarity to a role playing board game, but using very expensive and detailed, self -propelled tokens. The reason all the above huge layouts work, and if built well, having near 100% reliability is that RTR model trains don't actually copy (i.e. model) real railway technology to keep their trains on the track. Instead they use an alternative engineering solution of lightweight, rigid truck cars with deep wheel flanges, instead of having heavy cars, scale 1" flanges and working suspension type of rigorous engineering that the prototype needs to run with. In sense, ordinary model trains are using "stay on the track no matter what", near roller-coaster technology, but hidden under superb plastic model body shells, so that even the hand from the sky, or the 40 mph coupling movements, won't dislodge any car from the track. So Proto:87 is not just a case of making the flanges scale, and yet expecting the alternative engineering to keep working. Without the deep flanges, it can't, unless you have incredibly skilled the modellers like Brian Harrap, who also manage to make their trackwork similarly level and smooth to the prototype. For the rest of us, there has to a similarly rigorous adherence to the complete, but scaled down engineering of the prototype. It's not the laisse faire "modelling" that those who consider model railroading to be an unlimited and forgiving "art" are used to. But now I'm getting onto the other answer. . . . More later Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 In another page that Greg Amer links to from the page The Prof linked to, he describes what happened when he tried to run a six-axle P87 loco through a 24" curve. Really it confirms what Andy alludes to above; there is much more to P87 than swapping wheelsets & building finer turnouts. I've found it impossible to run my 6-axle loco (standard O scale) on my carefully-laid "rough" track, as it lacks sprung axles. As one of the replies to Gregs post says, in the UK "P4 guys compensate everything"... a similar approach really seems needed with P87 (or P48 I imagine). For me the attraction of Proto standards would be to copy that awful 'rock'n'roll' US secondary track so beloved of us UK-resident modellers, & which makes some US RMweb members despair .... but the work needed to get the stock & locos to run properly just makes such a nice idea prohobitively time- & money-consuming.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2014 As Dave just posted. Most US "model railroaders" don't care whether P:87 exists or not. They don't need to. Ditto for P:48 or FiNe. They don't have the glaring gauge discrepancy that 00 has, that spawned EM and P4 and opened the door to greater prototype comparisons. Another factor is the differing attitude to acceptable radius. Reading US-based articles and books, time and again you are told that 24" is a suitable radius for H0 main line tracks, and even down to 18" radius for branch tracks. John Armstrong devised a system of "Armstrong Squares" based on these dimensions. Whereas modellers in EM regard anything less than 36" as tight, and in P4 48" radius is regarded as a desirable minimum. To be successful and look right, P87 needs similar minimum radii. Which means the traditional "spaghetti junction" style of H0 layout won't work, or at least requires vastly more space. H0 modellers thinking of moving to P87 have more to upset established ideas than simply changing wheels and flangeway gaps, even if the track gauge does remain the same. For an "operations" layout you can happily run express trains round curves normally found only at the back of the gas works. But they look just as daft doing so with near-scale wheels as they do with RTR wheels, and they are much more likely to fall off. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think Andy R has both hit the nail on head and highlighted the difference between US modelling and the UK approach. The very reason for the existence of 'finescale', ie P4 and EM, is our peculiar adherence to a scale of 4mm to the foot. As the rest of the world, in essence, has started from a more sensible place, the need for P87 becomes unnecessary to the vast majority. Like it or not, P87 (or P48) won't ever achieve the level of coverage that even P4 and EM gets over here as the audience size is so small as it's a niche, within a niche. steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2014 The very reason for the existence of 'finescale', ie P4 and EM, is our peculiar adherence to a scale of 4mm to the foot. As the rest of the world, in essence, has started from a more sensible place, the need for P87 becomes unnecessary to the vast majority. It is only a more sensible place if you regard the track gauge as the one sacrosanct dimension. Not everyone agrees. If you use over-width RTR wheels, logic dictates reducing the track gauge so that wheelsets still fit within scale-width models -- behind cylinders, valve gear, axleboxes, bogie sideframes, and inside splashers. Mixing vastly overscale wheel profiles with an exact-scale track gauge, as the rest of the world does in H0, is just crazy. Why insist on one being to scale if not the other? 00 gauge is not as daft as it's made out. It's puzzling that modellers have this preoccupation that the distance between the rails must be correct, even when hardly anything else is. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Another factor is the differing attitude to acceptable radius. Reading US-based articles and books, time and again you are told that 24" is a suitable radius for H0 main line tracks, and even down to 18" radius for branch tracks. John Armstrong devised a system of "Armstrong Squares" based on these dimensions. Whereas modellers in EM regard anything less than 36" as tight, and in P4 48" radius is regarded as a desirable minimum. To be successful and look right, P87 needs similar minimum radii. Which means the traditional "spaghetti junction" style of H0 layout won't work, or at least requires vastly more space. H0 modellers thinking of moving to P87 have more to upset established ideas than simply changing wheels and flangeway gaps, even if the track gauge does remain the same. Martin. It would be so good to lose those awful "Horseshoe Curves" every scale half mile that peninsular plans enforce. But then you get back to the old chestnut of looking right vs operationally right that Dave1905 often brings up, i.e. such fakery is required to get a reasonable run when using strict timetables and delivery schedules on a layout built in a typical US basement. I'd say that a majority of US modellers prefer the curves. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2014 I'd say that a majority of US modellers prefer the curves. I agree. It explains the slow take-up of interest in P87. But it would take only one layout to turn the tables -- look at the effect of Eastwood Town on 00-SF. What happened to John Wright's Federal Street after it was sold in 2006? Unfortunately his web site on freeUK is long gone and the Wayback Machine doesn't keep images. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 TBH - I don't see folk being likely to take up P87 for any project on the scale that requires multiple aisles and aisle-end blobs... (Well, maybe something simple/minimalist/linear a-la Mindheim wouldn't be too bad as the work involved would be manageable - but not the more mainstream "modelling a big chunk of operable mainline" - just coping with reworking every piece of rolling stock required for something like that would put 99.9% of folk off...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 What big P4 layouts have there been? Hekmondwyke was fairly UK large, and is generally thought to be the layout that 'proved' P4/S4 although obviously it wasn't US large. Possibly a generalisation, but early P4 layouts were predominately steam, with much kit built stock. While the quantities may be lower than that of a basement empire, I'm not sure the work required is much less. Steam is a lot harder to convert than diesel. The lack of steam wheels to P87 standards is a big stumbling block, chassis are easier to scratch build than wheels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Particularly when the so-called Code 88 wheels look reasonable, to me anyway. If I can get hold of the 00-SF gauges that Brian sold (though I think I can fudge it anyway) I'll be trying a build ala Eastwood Town (though not mainline) with hand built turnouts but ME Code 70 flex track. I think it will do it for me... I'll report on it late Summer (I've suddenly got busy music-wise). Best, Pete. TBH - I don't see folk being likely to take up P87 for any project on the scale that requires multiple aisles and aisle-end blobs... (Well, maybe something simple/minimalist/linear a-la Mindheim wouldn't be too bad as the work involved would be manageable - but not the more mainstream "modelling a big chunk of operable mainline" - just coping with reworking every piece of rolling stock required for something like that would put 99.9% of folk off...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The Germans have taken to P87/HO-pur, but it is still an exclusive sector, and information and wheels remain hard to get because Teichmann, Willy Kosak et al don't really believe in Internet trading. If you make it difficult for people to buy wheels - and particularly wheels for engines - or hide yourself away, then people aren't going to know about your presence or capability. Same goes for the French - I only discovered Swiss-based Apogee Vapeur (who make P87 wheelsets for French locos) purely by accident. It took me years to get hold of P87 wheel form tools (and that only because Brian Harrap kindly put me on to Dave Doe in Holland, who was able to get a batch of tools made). The Europeans do make stuff for P87. They just don't quite make it open to all. What big P4 layouts have there been? Hekmondwyke was fairly UK large, and is generally thought to be the layout that 'proved' P4/S4 although obviously it wasn't US large Mostyn Bob How's "Kings Cross" Preston ...the latter two already work, with just buildings and scenery to be worked on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2014 Particularly when the so-called Code 88 wheels look reasonable, to me anyway. If I can get hold of the 00-SF gauges that Brian sold Now available from C&L -- see: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_376 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted March 31, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 31, 2014 What big P4 layouts have there been? Adavoyle Junction was on the exhibition circuit for 20 years from 1986 to 2006, with 2 outings in most years: http://templot.com/GNRI/adavoyle.htm It is now in the care of the South Dublin Model Railway Club. Tony Miles died in 2013. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 What big P4 layouts have there been? Hekmondwyke was fairly UK large, and is generally thought to be the layout that 'proved' P4/S4 although obviously it wasn't US large. Possibly a generalisation, but early P4 layouts were predominately steam, with much kit built stock. While the quantities may be lower than that of a basement empire, I'm not sure the work required is much less. Steam is a lot harder to convert than diesel. The lack of steam wheels to P87 standards is a big stumbling block, chassis are easier to scratch build than wheels I think that the point being made for "HO" is we don't have to worry about the gauge looking right but rather it's the possibility of running stock across layouts - to me it's more of a wheel issue as Martyn suggests. I like the idea of an agreed expanded minimum radius though - to look better. 'Course my view may change next week........ Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I agree. It explains the slow take-up of interest in P87. But it would take only one layout to turn the tables -- look at the effect of Eastwood Town on 00-SF. I don't think that is the case, at least not in North America. There isn't really the 'cult of the layout' over here - people don't go to shows to see particular known layouts, they go to see trains runing, frequently on modular layouts. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Scale wheels are as much of the advantage in looks as track gauge. However they are really only visible on steam locos. Having scale wheels mean that a lot of the fudges that have to be made to accommodate over width wheels and large flanges aren't necessary. The the lack of running boards and splashes on most US locos mean that body mods aren't necessary, but the wheels are even mor obvious Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSB Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 With the majority of H0 and 00 modellers around the world still happily wedded to Code 100 rail and the resurgence of interest in 0 gauge coarse scale tinplate toys in the UK I don't think Proto standards have much of a chance of ever being more than a minority interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Actually they go to shows to buy stuff from the vendors, the layouts are also there. I have seen maybe one or two non-modular layouts at the local shows. The stand alone switching displays are completely unknown to most US modelers. Its a completely different mindset. I'm sure that if you have small display layouts where you can stop and stare at an essentially static scene for 15-20 minutes the everything-to-scale can be appreciated. If I'm busy on a layout running a train and switching cars, quite frankly you don't notice the details as much. Probably the biggest "boost" P87 would have would be the "Lance Mindheim" style layouts with fewer curves and s-l-o-w operation where people just standing around waiting for brakeman to walk the set will have more time to notice track details etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Martin's example of Avadoyle http://templot.com/GNRI/adavoyle.htm is hardly small static switching display, Horsetan's example of Preston is currently just plywood and track, but is it is large, and fully signalled and requires lots of people to operate it http://clecklewyke.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/2009_1102rodebay00391.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Actually they go to shows to buy stuff from the vendors, the layouts are also there. So true. But I was thinking of the people who actually go to look at the layouts - there are actually a few of those. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVSNE Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 how do we explain the experience of Greg Amer? http://www.gregamer.com/index.php/2013/12/29/back-to-big-wheels/ He obviously had the motivation and want-to-make-it-happen, and from the outside-looking-in, it certainly didn't appear to be due to lack of skill, effort, or want to learn "any new method required", so I wonder what went soo wrong? As a promotion for P87 as a do-able approach, Greg's publicised efforts (and resulting turn-away) unfortunately didn't/doesn't do the cause any favours, (Greg was active on the MRH forum, and was considered one of the leading "actually doing it for real, and showing the pics to prove it" exponents of P87 track and detailing), I know a number of modellers were sitting back watching Greg's experience with a "if he proves it can work, then I'll give it a go" thought-process, Happy Modelling, Wondering why P87 has such a hard time getting "publicly promote-able results", Prof Klyzlr Not sure what "the cause" is...I tend to find zealots are best ignored as a rule. Guess the modelers with the "wait and see" attitude have their answer? Proto 87, or 48, 0r 64, or 160, will never be anything more than a niche within a niche. Fascinating stuff, but a niche. As far as Greg's experiences - his stated case in wanting to build the layout was to have a project to share with his two sons, who were understandably fascinated by the big trains their Dad drives for a living. For some reason I've never quite fathomed he decided to go whole hog with Proto:87 - spending a year to use his words, "sequestered" by himself building track and turnouts - doesn't seem to really meet the stated purpose of the project. Considering the stated purpose of the layout I'm not surprised at the approach he's decided to take. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVSNE Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Adavoyle Junction was on the exhibition circuit for 20 years from 1986 to 2006, with 2 outings in most years: http://templot.com/GNRI/adavoyle.htm It is now in the care of the South Dublin Model Railway Club. Tony Miles died in 2013. Martin. Martin, First of all, thanks for the link to the pictures of the Adavoyle Junction layout. I sent it to my Dad - who grew up along the Great Northern's mainline and remembers it well. Second, although not a small "shunting plank" that layout doesn't strike me as being terribly large (I can't see anywhere where the overall dimensions are mentioned, so if I'm wrong apologies in advance.) Marty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.