Jump to content
 

P87 : What will it take to successfully promo?


Prof Klyzlr

Recommended Posts

OBTW, if you look at the "fishplate" in Trisonic's picture, you will understand why they are called "angle bars"  in the US.  The fish plate is essentially a piece of angle iron with bolt holes in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come into the discussion a bit late, but here are my views on how far I am willing to go....

I model US HO and HOn3, and the layout I'm constructing is occupying a room 450 x 650 cm.

I really enjoy building! No matter if it is buildings, locomotives or track.

 

But to go all in with Proto 87?

No!

It is too much work. I need to be able to "cheat" where needed, as in staging areas, tunnels and helixes....

The pure concept of rebuilding ALL locomotives to Proto 87 is the biggest deal breaker here!

 

My way of getting the level of scale I desire, is to go this route:

 

Handlaid Code 70 track on PCB and wooden ties.

Spiked with the smallest spikes possible, I have tried ME's small and even making my own. The home made are smaller, but tedious to make!

I use HO fine scale roller gauges made by Railway engineering, as no one was willing to make some brass roller gauges to those standards.

That is 16.2 mm for code 70 rail!

That way I can use standard flex rails where needed, as the difference in gauge isn't critical.

I have modified Peco Code 75 switches to allow use of .88 wheels without dropping in the frogs.

I can use them in the staging areas with no problems at all then.

 

So to conclude it.

I want my tracks to look good, with hand spiked rails on mostly wooden ties.

I use code .88 wheels where possible, and OEM RP25 otherwise.

 

The need for good track details is big! I have bought some etched fish platesand tie bars, and I will see how much detail I will have.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

You'd need a plastic fishplate and a pair of smooth jawed pliers to replicate that in model form, I think!

Also, notice the N scale ballast in front and the Z scale at rear of the picture!

 

Seriously, is US practice to have two bolts facing one way & two facing the other (on fishplates)? I've never noticed that before, D'oh!

Cheers,

John E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OBTW, if you look at the "fishplate" in Trisonic's picture, you will understand why they are called "angle bars"  in the US.  The fish plate is essentially a piece of angle iron with bolt holes in it.

Details West make a joint bar that most closely resembles the one in the photograph. It's a bit chunky, and needs some refining to use with code 70 rail, but it does incorporate the angle.

Andy has a good etched part that represents the nut and bolt detail quite well within the limits of etching, but it doesn't have the angle. For the masochists, a deeper etch with a fold line would provide hours of enjoyment with a folding tool and a razor blade.

Central Valley offer various track details in plastic including joint bars and the various reinforcing strips.

Whether you opt for P87 or stay with HO, there are plenty of options for detailing ready-to-lay track. The biggest problem I have found is a lack of good photographs for my chosen prototype in the period I am modelling (Maine Central, early to mid 50s).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear High,

 

Given the article I (as a wannabe-track-detailing-fan) thought was actually a good "beginner track detailers" guide to "what went where" when detailing contemporary-era industrial turnouts got panned earlier on this week,
I'm actually at a loss to confidently apply any of the detail parts you mention to a PECO Code 83 turnout,
(IE try a gateway "P87-detailing upgrade" project),

 

without fear of making an (obvious to others, pity I'm soo dense) faux pax... :-(

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not all "angle iron - even in the same yard at New Hope PA:

 

post-9016-0-99110500-1396447994_thumb.jpg

 

Please note wood blocks! Why? I dunno!

 

 

Apologies for colour rendition - big T-Storm approached and had to lighten in iPhoto....so it looks monochromatic.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which article was that? ISTR the thread on Lance Mindheim's blog had some reference to a turnout on a layout not matching the prototype, but there was no link or reference to follow.

 

I try to find a picture and replicate what I see. Andy's site has a good series of photographs of a turnout from an earlier time frame, but of course that may not be suitable for a prototype that you are modelling.

 

When looking at pictures, I noticed MEC used what I'll describe as a heavy duty tie plate that spanned two timbers to anchor the running rail and the guard rail on some turnouts. I replicated that with styrene, once painted and weathered it looked OK.

 

I would estimate that detailing and weathering a turnout takes about three times as long as building the turnout, but it is fairly easy work if a bit fiddly. I am sure an expert would be able to pick my work apart, but I am happy with how the finished product looks once I take the optivisor off! And the testing I've done so far hasn't thrown up any issues with running reliability, though I would hope not since all I have built is simple turnouts to NMRA standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pete,

You'd need a plastic fishplate and a pair of smooth jawed pliers to replicate that in model form, I think!

Also, notice the N scale ballast in front and the Z scale at rear of the picture!

 

Seriously, is US practice to have two bolts facing one way & two facing the other (on fishplates)? I've never noticed that before, D'oh!

Cheers,

John E.

John, I didn't read your post until after posting my latest photo......as you can see most anything goes.

 

The big Mainlines around here are (almost) all concrete ties - I think they all are but never say never.....

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come into the discussion a bit late, but here are my views on how far I am willing to go....

I model US HO and HOn3, and the layout I'm constructing is occupying a room 450 x 650 cm.

I really enjoy building! No matter if it is buildings, locomotives or track.

 

But to go all in with Proto 87?

No!

It is too much work. I need to be able to "cheat" where needed, as in staging areas, tunnels and helixes....

The pure concept of rebuilding ALL locomotives to Proto 87 is the biggest deal breaker here!

 

My way of getting the level of scale I desire, is to go this route:

 

Handlaid Code 70 track on PCB and wooden ties.

Spiked with the smallest spikes possible, I have tried ME's small and even making my own. The home made are smaller, but tedious to make!

I use HO fine scale roller gauges made by Railway engineering, as no one was willing to make some brass roller gauges to those standards.

That is 16.2 mm for code 70 rail!

That way I can use standard flex rails where needed, as the difference in gauge isn't critical.

I have modified Peco Code 75 switches to allow use of .88 wheels without dropping in the frogs.

I can use them in the staging areas with no problems at all then.

 

So to conclude it.

I want my tracks to look good, with hand spiked rails on mostly wooden ties.

I use code .88 wheels where possible, and OEM RP25 otherwise.

 

The need for good track details is big! I have bought some etched fish platesand tie bars, and I will see how much detail I will have.

:-)

 

 

Here's a photo showing the difference between a standard HO wheelset, and one produced for P87/HO-pur

Link to post
Share on other sites

On to the Black River & Western at Ringoes, NJ.

 

The BR & W only use #8 turnouts.

This one has a guarded cast common crossing (frog):

 

post-9016-0-31855200-1396449442_thumb.jpg

 

post-9016-0-93269900-1396449468_thumb.jpg

 

In this same yard they also have unguarded cast common crossings and plain rail crossings......

Unguarded will follow later.

 

Btw if I remember correctly the New Hope PA yard is all plain rail crossings.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread seems to have added two definite extra and quite independent subjects from the OP question.

 

1. Detailing track for realism

 

2. Use of code 88 wheelsets

 

Since these are somehwat cluttering up the Proto:87 or not theme, I'm starting two other threads to split them off for clarification.

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are insulated fishplates between different track circuits. It is probably not wood -- usually Tufnol type resin composition.

 

Martin.

Thanks. The closest  definitely looked like wood though. Looked like 2x4".  The furthest does look like molded resin, I agree. This was in the Yard near the Engine House and repair facility - but I couldn't get to the other side...possible that resin was used on the inside of each rail? Maybe?

I'll try and check when next down there.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are insulated fishplates between different track circuits. It is probably not wood -- usually Tufnol type resin composition.

 

Martin.

 

There are lots of different variations on insulated joints.  Some of the earliest had resin impregnated pressed paper "liner" that went between the angle bar and the rail, with pressed paper tubes through the bolt holes and a piece of rail shaped pressed paper between the rail ends.  Later variations of that style substituted plastic for the paper.

 

There were insulated joints where the angle bar was a steel core encased in plastic with plastic tubes and spacer.

 

Some angle bars were made of plastic or fiberglass entirely.

 

The most modern insulated joints are sometimes called "I-bonds" and they are rails and angle bars that are factory epoxied so the joint is essentialy as strong as the rail.  They are cut into the rail and welded into place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of different variations on insulated joints.  Some of the earliest had resin impregnated pressed paper "liner" that went between the angle bar and the rail, with pressed paper tubes through the bolt holes and a piece of rail shaped pressed paper between the rail ends.  Later variations of that style substituted plastic for the paper.

 

There were insulated joints where the angle bar was a steel core encased in plastic with plastic tubes and spacer.

 

Some angle bars were made of plastic or fiberglass entirely.

 

The most modern insulated joints are sometimes called "I-bonds" and they are rails and angle bars that are factory epoxied so the joint is essentialy as strong as the rail.  They are cut into the rail and welded into place.

 

Heck. That Apple firm is into everything!

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, to answer the OPs question about what it would take to make Proto 87 more common....

Easily obtainable parts, especially for locomotives and rolling stock.

That's it.

And to make things easier, a good enough attitude towards those who tries the Proto route.

Isn't the good look of the scale wheels and turnouts enough?

Must everything be perfect down to the last inverted bolt in the fishplates?

The more people who tries proto87, the more goodwill the standards will get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a bit more to it than availability of components, although that is of course a pre-requisite. And in fact right now if you model steam, it's something of a show-stopper. For those modelling the British prototype in 4mm scale there is good support for P4. You have a choice of two or three manufacturers for wheels, depending on your prototype. You have support from companies like Brassmasters, Comet, High Level Models, Dave Bradshaw etc etc for running gear (apologies to those omitted, no slight intended.) That's not true for the US scene.

But it does take time to build or convert things. A small amount of time if you are simply changing wheelsets. More time if you are building a chassis. I'm slowly working on a Brassmasters conversion for a simple 0-6-0, it's taking a while because I want to do a good job. It's destined for a very small P4 layout mostly intended for me to determine whether I can in fact work to that standard. And I like to think it's helping me improve my skills. But as John E (Allegheny1600) noted in post 30, this is "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."

It's not that things don't work, it's more that it takes more time to build them, hence if you are a lone worker you are not going to complete as many models.

And it's not that layouts don't work. But it may not be possible to build the kind of layout you want in the space you have. Using the compromised standard that is HO I can just about squeeze something I might find interesting into my spare bedroom. I doubt the scheme would be feasible in P87.

I would argue that unless you can convince people that less is more when it comes to layouts (and there is a good case to be made for that, but it won't appeal to all) and that it does not require advanced levels of skill to convert locomotives and rolling stock (and there are doubtless plenty of cases where that is true, but not in all cases) then promoting P87, which was the original point of the thread, is likely to remain a challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

René Gourley has done it in reverse, showing what the real thing would look like if scaled up from most H0 models:

http://www.proto87.org/d/

I'm not totally convinced by these images. Looking at other photos of models with RP25-110 wheelsets the tyres are obviously wider than scale but not as coarse as those appear to be. 

I'd be interested to know what experience people have had with RP25-88 wheelsets as, though I model European H0, I used to model American H0 and found the RP25s -presumably code 110- provided in "shake the box kits" far more convincing and smooth running through pointwork (Shinohara) than the Pizza cutter wheels offered by European manufacturers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'd be interested to know what experience people have had with RP25-88 wheelsets

 

RP25/88 wheels are 2.3mm wide and essentially equivalent to the EMGS profile in the UK and 00/EM kit wheels.

 

In order for them to be properly supported through crossings (frogs) without dropping in the gap it is necessary to use 1.0mm flangeway gaps. Then in order to mix them with RP25/110 RTR wheels on the same track it is necessary to reduce the track gauge to 16.2mm (H0-SF). They will bump or derail on standard H0 track with 1.3mm flangeway gaps.

 

Unfortunately this is likely to lead to another set of arguments similar to those we have just suffered for 00-SF.

 

More about H0-SF: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81514-new-products-for-00-sf-and-5-pages-of-silly-arguments-about-it/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1392403

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RP25/88 wheels are 2.3mm wide and essentially equivalent to the EMGS profile in the UK and 00/EM kit wheels.

 

In order for them to be properly supported through crossings (frogs) without dropping in the gap it is necessary to use 1.0mm flangeway gaps. Then in order to mix them with RP25/110 RTR wheels on the same track it is necessary to reduce the track gauge to 16.2mm (H0-SF). They will bump or derail on standard H0 track with 1.3mm flangeway gaps.

 

Unfortunately this is likely to lead to another set of arguments similar to those we have just suffered for 00-SF.

 

More about H0-SF: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/81514-new-products-for-00-sf-and-5-pages-of-silly-arguments-about-it/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1392403

 

Martin.

Thanks Martin

I challenge anyone to see a difference between 16.2 and 16.5 mm gauge track. Have you tried this with European H0 wheelsets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally a Rail-Bound Crossing with a cast insert  (by Bethlehem Steel) from the BR & W yard.

 

post-9016-0-93840600-1396521904_thumb.jpg

 

post-9016-0-53353400-1396521939_thumb.jpg

 

Note in photos the view of the spike.

 

I know that the MRC of Union (one of the largest H0 layouts in the World) use a tiny pin prick of an "Araldite" type adhesive to illustrate spikes on their hand laid track. It also is enough to hold the rail in position (see Paul Mallery's book  "Trackwork Handbook for Model Railroads" - Carstens).

 

The real spikes are so small that most mechanical representations of them are grossly overscale in H0.

 

This small series of photos of two Shortline Yards also illustrate (particularly the BR & W) how any form of crossing on turnouts can be found where budgets are tight.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Finally an Unguarded Cast Crossing (by Bethlehem Steel) from the BR & W yard.

 

Hi Pete,

 

Technically that is a Rail-Bound Crossing (frog) with a cast insert. In a Cast Crossing the whole thing is a single casting.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to the original question; I think the ideal target for P87 will be a person coming into the hobby from another area, say military models or the like, with a bit of skill and an eye for detail or someone returning to railways after a break of a few years. Here's the reasoning, both will have a minimal investment in stock but an interest in doing things well. The investment is stock is key as few people want to go to the expense of mass conversion of existing equipment and track to say nothing of the time involved.

 

There, I've said it. :yes:

 

Cheers,

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...