Jump to content
 

P87 : What will it take to successfully promo?


Prof Klyzlr

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

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.)

 

Hi Marty,

 

Adavoyle Junction was 21ft x 12ft (6.4m x 3.6m). I don't know if that counts as large, but after carrying all the baseboards from the van we wouldn't have wanted it any larger. :)

 

You can see the full size better here: http://templot.com/GNRI/cultra.htm

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marty,

 

Adavoyle Junction was 21ft x 12ft (6.4m x 3.6m). I don't know if that counts as large, but after carrying all the baseboards from the van we wouldn't have wanted it any larger. :)

 

You can see the full size better here: http://templot.com/GNRI/cultra.htm

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin.

I'd considered it medium sized - with complex trackwork.

 

To get back to the original question in the title of this thread "What will it take to successfully promo P:87?" I'm not sure I have the magic bullet.

What I know WON'T work is this undercurrent of "If you don't do xx, you're doing it wrong" that permenates some aspects of the hobby.  

You'll always catch more flies with honey than vinegar holds true here.

People might be more interested in dipping their toes in the proto water if you can sell them on a "why" that shows them a benefit beyond "'cause if you don't, you're not as good as me." I could say the same about P:48, or DCC, or 'superdetailed' operations, or realistic sound, or hyper-realistic paperwork or any of a number of examples I could cite.

If you really want to promote Proto 87 don't waste your breath explaining that my conventional HO locomotives and cars don't exactly match the prototype. If I care enough to know what P:87 is, I  know that already. Instead, tell me what I'm going to get out of it - sell me the steak not the sizzle.

Why should someone consider it? (I'm not, by the way) What are the benefits, other than a chance to brag about how I'm so much better than everyone else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just a few observations!

P:48 arose because standard 0 scale in the US/NA gives 5 foot gauge, IMHO not quite as bad as 00 is in the UK but it displeases some and I wish them every success following it. I believe this discrepancy only really arose from those following narrow gauge (3') interests, then crossed over.

I would say that if you have to ask what the benefits of P:87 are, then it's probably not for you! (same as with P4 (P:76!)).

For me, all of the "Proto" scales are about building working scale models not working layouts as such by this I mean that the primary focus is largely on all the details of the rolling stock rather than the operation of same.

I thought it telling that one of the largest & best P:87 layouts was built in the UK as this practically demonstrates the major difference between UK & US versions of American modelling.

IMHO, the only "magic bullet" would be for a dedicated group of modellers in the USA to get together and devote ten (20?) or more years of their modelling career to a single project - this is quite a challenge in the UK, where we are more used to such things!

Cheers,

John E.

 

(working on MMRS P4 layout "Slattocks" for a while now and still waiting the chance to use my P:87 supplies from Andy R!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on who you are building the layout for, doesn't it? If you want to make a social thing of the layout then you have miles of track and/or yards so that the trains can keep whizzing by in which case just about any old thing would do for some people. OTOH if you want detail and a realistic depiction of the railway then you have to scale down the size if you ever expect to get anything finished and running. It is a very rare bird that can do both. Given all of that, P87 will, like P4, Scale Seven etc., be a much harder sell for the average enthusiast. I already model in P4 and have been tempted by P87 but only have so much time, space, and money :)

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hand on my heart a lot of what's been said has gone over my head, I can still remember some time ago thinking 'what the hell are they on about' when my friends started talking about their 'EM' fine scale layout. This sadly is the same, it looks great and I'd love to have a go but would I end up getting fed-up and packing in...I have a box in the railway room full of bits to make my own 'EM' track :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

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

Hi Marty,

 

More photos of Adavoyle on the club website:-

 

http://www.sdmrc.hobbysites.net/photogallery.php?album_id=5

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of curves is more a "UK" thing, too, as it affects couplings. In the UK P4 & EM users are also likely to want to use 'scale' couplings, which being typically buffers & 3-links, need good wide radius curves to work. In the US the buckeye coupling works well even down to tight radii, and with no buffers there's no issue of buffer-lock. I bet most US modellers never give couplings a second thought, beyond the choice of make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Pete makes an interesting point with his comment about Code 88 wheels. Marrying them with Model Engineering track Code 70 trackwork gives, to my mind, what could be said to be "EM" to P87's "P4".

 

The US layout I'm building at the moment, Duncan's Mine II, will be using these 'standards'. I'll have to wait and see how that turns out.

 

steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree that the concept of P87 is easier to swallow from the point of view of someone from the UK who is used to building track to finescale standards, instead of in the US where although track is handlaid, there does have to be some degree of backward compliance and a modeller is less likely to start afresh on a new project.

 

And me? I did consider P87 for my first US outline traction layout, but after some advice from the builder of Federal St, decide against it. Despite changing the wheelsets anyway and only needing a small fleet of non-steam models, it seemed to be an added complication when I had enough trouble with the overhead wiring which uses compromised principles anyway, and would mean no interchangeability with other layouts without changing the wheelsets back. Plus another big reason is you can't deny a lot of modelling is done to show to others (the US show circuit being vastly different to the UK one), and a lot of punters know what HO is but wouldn't comprehend any other differences in the same way the 4mm gauge wars are played out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marty,

 

Adavoyle Junction was 21ft x 12ft (6.4m x 3.6m). I don't know if that counts as large, but after carrying all the baseboards from the van we wouldn't have wanted it any larger. :)

I still remember the Chatham show, where every section really was heavy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best promotion is to do it yourself and show people it exists, and can work. It's then up to them to decide if that's the sort of modelling they enjoy.

The standards exist. Andy R has provided most of the track parts, wheels are available for stock and diesels, it's only steam wheels (and replacement scale motion) that's lacking

Having said that, I modelled P4 before, but I'm quite happy with modern H0 standards now

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best promotion is to do it yourself and show people it exists, and can work. It's then up to them to decide if that's the sort of modelling they enjoy.

The standards exist. Andy R has provided most of the track parts, wheels are available for stock and diesels, it's only steam wheels (and replacement scale motion) that's lacking

Having said that, I modelled P4 before, but I'm quite happy with modern H0 standards now

I still think there's a bit more to it than wheels'n'track... diesel locos (especially 6-axle types) really are going to need some sort of springing/compensation work of some sort to keep all the wheels on the track. Rolling stock isn't such a problem as the fact US stock is already on trucks should be a big help anyway, but whether sprung model trucks can act in the same way as real ones, with relatively stronger springs and much lighter vehicle weight, is another matter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

... diesel locos (especially 6-axle types) really are going to need some sort of springing/compensation work of some sort to keep all the wheels on the track. Rolling stock isn't such a problem as the fact US stock is already on trucks should be a big help anyway, but whether sprung model trucks can act in the same way as real ones, with relatively stronger springs and much lighter vehicle weight, is another matter...

Something like these, but for US or Continental use...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 but whether sprung model trucks can act in the same way as real ones, with relatively stronger springs and much lighter vehicle weight, is another matter...

I agree, Jordan. The weight and the inertia of the sprung weight in relation to spring movement are difficult if not impossible to scale down properly. I'd like to see a movie of an HO or P87 diesel where the movement reacts just like the prototype - because I'd be seriously impressed.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Jordan. The weight and the inertia of the sprung weight in relation to spring movement are difficult if not impossible to scale down properly. I'd like to see a movie of an HO or P87 diesel where the movement reacts just like the prototype - because I'd be seriously impressed.

 

Best, Pete.

Well yes you can, but not in real time simply because you can't scale time and therefore gravity. However if you take the film at a faster rate than normal, approximately the square root of the scale (so for S scale at 8 times, being the square root of 64), when played you will see prototypical behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think code 88, and finer flangeways, are a good way to go, but it is a shame that that the flanges are a bit thick - the NMRA could have gone for a code 87 profile based on AAR to 1:64 scale just as easily. (Thereby preserving the profile, and also helping people like me.)

 

Simon

 

I am using Code 88 wheels and Kadee #58 couplers on all my cars (except some bobber cabooses that just do better with the standard wheels.)  But all my engines (all steam) are standard wheels.  I do tend to handlay the track to a bit tighter than NMRA using  #4, #5 and #6 switches built on templates photocopied from prototype switch plans and a minimum mainline radius of 24", 18" minimum for industrial track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes you can, but not in real time simply because you can't scale time and therefore gravity. However if you take the film at a faster rate than normal, approximately the square root of the scale (so for S scale at 8 times, being the square root of 64), when played you will see prototypical behaviour.

A common trick in the film industry, I believe..?

 

Trouble is, we want to watch our models in real time, & for real, not on a screen. :( ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A common trick in the film industry, I believe..?

 

Trouble is, we want to watch our models in real time, & for real, not on a screen. :( ;)

I knew I shouldn't have said the word: "movie". I still think it would be difficult even then - getting spring rates that would work with the sprung weight of the model per the prototype would be tiresome, dear boy. Hey, I've just moved up a class!

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

?...getting spring rates that would work with the sprung weight of the model per the prototype would be tiresome, dear boy. ...

No reason for it to be difficult. See the sprung diesel bogie kits produced by Penbits, and by Rumney Models (Justin Newitt); these are for P4, but no reason the principles couldn't be applied to P87.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to promote Proto 87 don't waste your breath explaining that my conventional HO locomotives and cars don't exactly match the prototype. If I care enough to know what P:87 is, I  know that already. Instead, tell me what I'm going to get out of it - sell me the steak not the sizzle.

Why should someone consider it? (I'm not, by the way) What are the benefits, other than a chance to brag about how I'm so much better than everyone else?

 

Just an idle thought, but the early days of American railroading produced a whole range of gauges between "standard" and "broad". Down South, 5' was considered standard and on the Erie the gauge was 6' - so how would you go about modelling those? I know that generations of Tyco/Mantua 4-4-0 "Generals" have been running on 16.5mm track, when the original was built to run on 5' gauge - and nobody seems to give it a second thought. But does P87 offer an opportunity to start generating a set of standards for tackling 17.5mm gauge for the Southern states or 21mm gauge for the Erie (not to mention all the others)? 

Nothing to do with bragging: merely a systematic approach to tackling a challenge.

Best wishes

Eric    

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....does P87 offer an opportunity to start generating a set of standards for tackling 17.5mm gauge for the Southern states or 21mm gauge for the Erie (not to mention all the others)? 

Nothing to do with bragging: merely a systematic approach to tackling a challenge.

 

Oddly enough, you already have a partial answer, as parts are already available for 21mm gauge, also known as P4/Irish 5'3".....

Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason for it to be difficult. See the sprung diesel bogie kits produced by Penbits, and by Rumney Models (Justin Newitt); these are for P4, but no reason the principles couldn't be applied to P87.

No-one is doubting that model locos can be sprung... but can they be sprung so as to replicate that wonderful slow side-to-side swaying that locos do on badly maintained track, as demonstrated on several You-Tube clips of such Railroads as the Maumee & Western, that we're all familiar with?

The short answer is 'no'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So many posts, (48?.) so many different positions an dopinions, (248???) and so little time.  And all before I even added the real red meat of "Hot Wheels - Part Deux"

Clearly, I can’t list and answer every point made. Please understand I had no input into the work of Iain and Greg, and rather than list and argue the issues they each created (on their own), I'm just continuing on building on my own actually quite successful implementation so far of a Proto:87 Demo layout, even using easy to add minor suspension improvements and randomly badly laid track. 

 

It took Heckmondwike to counter the negative speculation of Cyril Freezer, and my "North East Corridor" phase of the Long Beach line of my future Pacific Electric Layout will do the same for all the points raised here. I don't have much time or inclination to spend on promotion, or marketing. I'm just enjoying having got far enough with the production aspects, that I'm now getting on with the actual layout and beginning to share some of it for those interested.

 

 

For those who don't know my history, here is the main prototype reason I switched to scale flangeways for my growing collection of Pacific Electric Interurban cars. Please excuse the  "promo" messages that end the youtube clips.  I don't have time to go back and edit them now.

 

vid1.gif

 

Here is the original test I built and performed to make sure scale flange ways and scale wheels would still work 100% at really extreme speeds and incredibly tight radii.  Note it is the vehicle construction that determines the minmum radius, not the fineness of the track standard.  I'm quite sure I will be able to make Proto:87 6 axle diesels run 100% OK on 24" radius, if I do a litle work on the innards of the trucks. As you can all see, 4 axles are already no problem.

 

 

Here are the undersides of the simple converted loco and cars for the first "NE Corridor" high speed test. Note thes are RTR locos and cars, all still with their original RIGID RTR trucks.

 

susp5.jpg  susp4.jpg

 

The only modification is the same as the one shown here. Adding a "gimbal" bearing to one of the truck bolsters of each loco and car. So the car can roll over less even track.

 

shop-track-tele-1.jpg

 

Here's the standard of the track on the straight sections. The long view shows the considerable amount of unintended bumps and dips the train faces as it runs.

 

 

Here's that same train I showed the wheels of doing multiple loops at 120 scale mph over that track. It ran happily continuously indefinitely, but I shut it down after each 30 mins so as not to overheat the loco.

 

 

And the latest situation last week, by which time, I'd re-wheeled and added gimbals to nine cars, and put the cosmetic body back on the loco.

 

Amfleet%20truck%20001-clipped.jpg

 

I agree in most cases, the cosmetic appearance of the wheels is mainly hidden, but the Amfeet coaches of the NE Corridor are a glaring exception.

 

truck-amfleet-p87-wheels-unmodified.jpg

 

Here's what P:87 does as quickly captured by my cell phone for this post.

 

truck-amfleet-walthers.jpg

 

Versus the way it comes out of the box.

 

frog_swap.jpg

 

 

As to making regular track easily, I practice pre-formed frog swapping as a way of updating existing and almost any type of RTR HO track. So the handlaid issues (as per Iain and Greg), can be completely bypassed if so desired. At my original proto:87 try-out clinic, I took some RTR box cars and a coupla dozen section of 18" radius sectional track. The audience modified the wheels and then played with cars by shooting them back and forth over the sectional track laid out as a long set of alternating reverse curves. Impressed amazement all around.

 

 

frog55_side.jpg

 

 

My reason for moving onto implementing regular railroad track, rather than staying with just street track, and saving a few years, was because my PE prototype used masses of both. So I ended up spending a year devising the Switch-Works jigs which allow one to make up almost exactly protoypical track, but using bench construction methods that ensure flat results that emulate the flatness and rigidity of sectional track. I'm pretty much convinced, even without Iain and Greg's efforts, that handlaying track the "traditional" US modelling way is instant death for proto:87. But by creating an equivalent of accurately manufactured sectional track, we have created a dependable alternative, that is diffiult to make NOT work.

 

Hopefully this should put many of the posted uncertainties to bed while I get moving on the next phase of the layout.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...