Fast Tracks

Model Railroading Discussion Forums

Return To The Fast Tracks Website

The Fast Tracks discussion forums have been closed. Click Here for more information.

It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Compromised!
PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 11
Howdy and a happy new year to all.

In building scale models, utmost accuracy is very important to modelers. In most cases, accuracy is provided by companies that make 1/48 and other scale plastic scale models. In my experience for example, modelers of scale aircraft try for the most realistic and accurate markings, paint schemes, armament, etc. for aircraft in specific squadrons and specific time period. Having modeled that way myself, now that I'm getting back to model railroading, it is the only way I can go.

With that perspective, I'm getting back into MRR and I've done quite a bit of research into whether to use HO or P87 wheels on locos and rolling stock. I've read many discussions about the relative merits of P87 versus its drawbacks and each side has valuable arguments. Please remember that I have little first hand experience of anything I might mention. This is strictly based on what I've gleaned from the Web.

From what I see and read, P87 replacement wheel sets are available only for rolling stock and diesels. They are not manufactured for steam locos. Why aren't wheel sets for steam locos available? Obviously, the answer is that no one makes them and the reason no one makes them is because not enough modelers want them. And why is that? Because they are not compatible with regular HO turnouts to be precise.

Now, converting an existing layout with dozens of HO turnouts to P87 standards on most layouts is cost prohibitive and time consuming. I can understand that. Another reason for not converting is that many modelers are less concerned with accuracy and detail and more with ease of functionality and what works now is good enough - a compromise. Modelers seem to relish detail and accuracy in locos. rolling stock, couplers, buildings, scenery, trackage, lighting, correct loco sound and performance - you name it except when it comes to wheels and track. Close is good enough!

Unfortunately, this works against modelers like me who are just getting started who would like to go the P87 route and run steamers but who have to make the choice other than P87. And unless things change toward P87, future modelers will face the same decision in years to come.

Now, I've learned that the Brits model in P4 in the UK so someone's making scale wheels close to but smaller than P87. Why then can't some one in the United States of America make P87 wheels for steam locos? Is it that difficult? Can't hobbyists/machinists do it? Are they cost prohibitive to make? Must be! But you'd think someone out there could/would take a chance. I've read web pages describing the process so it seems it's just a matter of doing it. I hate to say this but I'm sure someone in China or Eastern Europe could make a million P87 wheel sets for steam locos for very little. I think some entrepreneur can make a bundle and cause a paradigm shift in the hobby at the same time.

So are semi-scale code 88 wheel sets the answer? Seems like the best compromise to me at the moment. It seems it's been a few years since this code was adopted. So why don't rolling stock and loco manufacturers at least offer code 88 wheel sets? Cost? Seems what manufacturers want and get is good enough.

Even though it can be done, FT turnouts are still iffy when it comes to code 88. Wouldn't it be great if cast, code 88 safe frogs like Andy Reichart's, could be plugged into all types of FT turnouts or if CVT made more than standard plastic turnout tie strips that would accept code 88 safe frogs?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Compromised!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:48 am
Posts: 365
Location: East Texas - USA
A lot of info here to cover.

P4 (also Scalefour) in UK is 4mm=1'-0" and is very proto accurate - but the wheel profile is 'slightly' larger than Proto:87 vs. being smaller. Many in P87 start with available P4/S4 steam drivers and cut them down to the P87 profile. Problem here is the 4mm scale steam drivers are all usually a bit larger in diameter than the more common and desirable P87 wheel sizes wanted.

Availability of steam drivers for P87 is a marketing and cost issue. Every drivers replacement is different fro just about every steam locomotive and there is not common P87 users to as yet justify the code 64 P87 profiles for specific steam drivers.

Code 88 is a fine scale wheel, been around since early 1980's - but is a compromise for 'standard' HO - and to 'correctly function' does require fine scale track with tighter specifications. There is no ready made track to the fine scale specifications - so there is not a 'practical' market for wheels sets of RTR equipment. Note also: there is not a ready market for code 88 steam drivers either for the same marketing reasons of P87 profiles. HOn3 has and does use code 88 wheels and the HOn3 track is to the tighter specifications appropriate. However the migration to standard gauge HO never caught on for fine scale.

There is a trade off of 'historic components' and the higher fidelity of accurate appearance. Track and wheels have an interrelationship and must correctly be matched. Fine and Proto wheels doe not run on 'standard' track. Regular standard wheels won't function of fine and proto track. It takes a full commitment to move towards higher fidelity - then there are other constraints that become imposed with greater fidelity. Better chassis equalization, less compromise with curvature allowances and other factors become imposed. Proto and even 'Fine' will as consequence be skilled niche markets and not likely to be RTR supported in the main stream.

-ed mccamey-

_________________
-ed mccamey-
COSLAR RR - http://www.coslar.us/
NMRA Standards and Conformance Department
PROTO & FINE Scale Coordinator
I estimate I have about 5 pounds of coupler springs somewhere in the vicinity of my workbench.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Compromised!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 11
Ed,

You mentioned that semi-scale wheels have been around since the early '80s - 25 to 30 years. Your comment answered my suspicions. You reiterated what I essentially wrote and that is that human nature being what it is, I shouldn't hold my breath and expect that the modeling community will be making a paradigm shift to greater fidelity in my lifetime - perhaps another 30 or so years.

Not surprisingly, like so many other things in life then, the masses, right or wrong, continue to dictate reality - not surprising. It's a shame that both groups, operationally minded modelers and authentic fine scalers, can't have their cakes and eat them too.

Pretty heavy duty stuff, I know, but I'm a bit disappointed. I was looking for someone to correct me, not vet my suspicions.

Thanks Ed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Compromised!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 11
BTW, Ed, I just read your reply to "Wheelset - Which do you use" OP on Railroad Line Foruam dated Nov. 28, 2007 in which you mention that you use P87 in your home layout. Care to elaborate? I for one would like to learn more about what it takes to run P87.

Thanks again ahead of time.

George


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Compromised!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:48 am
Posts: 365
Location: East Texas - USA
I've been doing P87 since early 1990s. Before that I did the old RP3 and RP4 fine scale modeling. I was one of the first 6 to form the P87-SIG. There's a fine yahoo group list for proto87 and with now better than 600 members - a critical mass for products and aftermarket conversions exist. Note we still don't have ready to convert steam drivers - it takes lathe skills to make those modifications.

As the NMRA Track and Wheel standards manager, I'm also coordinator for Proto and Fine scale standards. The NMRA Technical Note TN-1.1.2 for Proto scales was authored and edited by myself with world wide assistance from many other proto scale modelers.

I attended the Proto:87 international convention in Amsterdam in March 2009 and better than 85 attendees with demonstration layouts were present.

This is not the forum for P87 - go to yahoo groups and find "proto87" - join and participate there.

-ed-

_________________
-ed mccamey-
COSLAR RR - http://www.coslar.us/
NMRA Standards and Conformance Department
PROTO & FINE Scale Coordinator
I estimate I have about 5 pounds of coupler springs somewhere in the vicinity of my workbench.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Compromised!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:40 pm
Posts: 12
George
There are compromises in everything in model railroading. Distance for one is a compromise most of us has to succumb too. Weight is another. There is no way you can scale the weight of a locomotive to proto scale. Wheel width on steamers is another. P87 is a growing niche but it is still a niche. For someone to take on the task of tooling up all the dies for every conceivable steam loco driver would be a monumental task that would take millions of dollars just to get started. Just looking at one locomotive like the PRR decapod would take three different molds and possibly four depending on the time frame the modeler chooses. That is beyond the scope of mass marketing manufacturing. Maybe someone with passion and the ability could do some custom work but it truly would not be cost effective.
I started on my home layout and thought about going P87. But instead of jumping into it whole hog I decided to just do the fine-scale look of detailed track with code 70 mainline and code 55 in yards and sidings with some code 40 here and there in very little used track. With the look of the detailed track it tends to take the wide tire look away and focuses the viewer to the details. Just adding joint bars and rail braces adds more to the track than looks. It adds a sense of realism that goes beyond the compromises we have to deal with. This should be good enough for my steam era pike.
Pete

_________________
Its a Hobby not a JOB!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group