Hey ya’ll! I’m absolutely torn between a choice with my track. My layout is an 60x85 in a large free standing shelf style. I want to use Proto 87 F&E track but that means I must put all my steam locomotive’s drivers in a mini metal lathe, including my brass, and then ship them off to be refinished. I love the detail in Proto 87 and would be much, much happier with the outcome. My other choice is using Shinohara track which is not nearly as detailed and I would not be fully satisfied with the layout. I am a major rivet counter. Cost is not a factor in this descision. Also for all you fellers out there with a lathe, how would you take the measurements of the wheels and put them into the computer then change their measurements to be proto87? I’m a baby when it comes to the CNC lathe stuff so help me out. Thanks. -Outlaw…
That really is some considerable work on all that steam. Instead of Walther’s/ Shinohara, check out MicroEngineering, ME has far better detail.
What if after all the tear down/ machining you end up creating issues w/ otherwise decent running equipment.
I assume you’re doing Proto87 on a 60"x85" layout. That seems doable…
Wait, you mean FEET??
I think you should start with a Proto87 module, determine if its somewhat labor intensive nature is as attractive as it sounds right now. You do know it involves the track at least as much as the motive power and rolling stock, right? Because you’re not really doing Proto87 unless you’re doing the whole enchilada, so you do need to stick with the handlaid exquiste track that results.
This is not a diss on Proto87 at all. Great stuff, crazy levels of detail. But if you’re still scratching your head over measurement conversion, you’re at the low point on a very steep learning curve. It looks and even operates better because of the finescale tolerances. Most people have at least beginners luck with standard track components, such as you mentioned, but even then things crop up and can leave you scratching your head to you figure the problem with that trunout that always derails a certain 3 cars, etc. With Proto87, those effects are multiplied. With a barnful of it, better pack a big lunch.
Perhaps others with experience with trying to mix Proto87 above the rails with track that isn’t can comment? It may work just fine. But the reason people build Proto87 is to run it on Proto87 track to enjoy the benefits of its silky operating characteristics.
However, I second the motion for ME track, maybe combining that with Proto87 components on turnouts. I think it’s compatible with FastTracks jigs, but that’s the way I’d go. I do know some of the toerances may be a bit different that actual Proto87 track, but I think that it all works together cosmetically from what I remember people discussing it.
You can make commericial track look very presentable, though, with the right techniqies. Rob Spanglers WP layout is a good example, along with Doctor Wayne and others here, who could serve as an example of just how far you can take that.</
Wow, all I can say is: I’m happy I’m not bothered by the fact “I don’t count the rivets” and need all that detail. My code 100 Atlas Tracks and turnouts work just fine for me. In the end, I am a “MODEL” railroader, MODEL, being the operative word. Although my model railroad is easily recognized as a railroad, it is after all only a miniature of the real thing, it doesn’t actually haul freight, almost all of my box cars are empty, and the few passengers in my passenger cars are made from plastic, they don’t move, breath; or, feel pain when an accident occurs. I’m having fun building the layout and the models, which to me is what the hobby is all about.
Although I was a tool and die maker and wouldn’t need CNC equipment to do what you’re considering doing, I won’t go so far as to tell you not to. We all have to partake in the hobby in a way that lives up to our own standards. Sin
I’ve experienced some pretty finicky steam engines in the tracking department - I couldn’t fathom trying to deal with those same engines with Proto-87 flanges on them !
Micro Engineering has both code 55 and code 70 track that looks extremely nice … even for the rivet counters out there.
Mark.
My [2c] is that you should look into either Micro Engineering or Peco, and choose the one that you think looks the best, but your locomotives will still run on.
Shipping off a lot of locomotives and having the drivers fixed is going to cost a lot of money. Are you really going to notice the track that much after ballast and weathering? Personally, I would spend my money else where. For rivet counters, I would suggest sheets of scale rivets[swg]. But seriously, you can get some nice pices of rolling stock that are a lot more detailed, or you could make a nice structure and add more detail
You could also try Central Valley track components, which are quite detailed and they allow you to use whatever rail you like.
-Bob
While all of the track suggested is nice for regular HO, none of it is truly suitable for Proto87 use, and turnouts are another issue altogether.
If you’re really a rivet counter (a good thing in my opinion, as long as it’s your own rivets you’re counting and not someone else’s), then not only should the flanges be turned down, but the wheels and tires need to be made much narrower - very similar to those on Proto87 wheelsets for freight cars.
When I saw the dimensions of your layout, my first thought was that you were being overly ambitious, but, if Mike is right about those measurements being in inches, it’s certainly do-able.
If cost is truly not a factor, I’d suggest contacting NWSL or PSC about having new drivers made-up, with the correct flanges and width, and driver tires either plated or done in nickel-silver.
Wayne
Some Proto:87 guys can and do use the likes of Micro Engineering flextrack and Central Valley tie strips. The track gauge is the same, and the wheelsets perform the same on just plain track. Turnouts are where the problems occur, as P87 wheelsets require much closer tolerances around the frogs due to the much narrower treads.
True P87 means a lot of deviations from standard model practice. The wheels have a narrower tread, smaller flanges, and a thinner wheel overall, whether you’re talking about loco drivers or car wheels. The back-to-back spacing of the wheels is different, which means the standard for flangeway dimensions is different. I have been told that commercial switches simply don’t work, and can’t be modifed to work without serious compromises in appearance, especially in the areas of the frogs and flangeways. The narrower tread means that “normal” freight cars look a bit weird in an end view unless you replace the truck bolster with a shorter one. Typical HO trucks are proportionally wider than prototype trucks because their wheel treads are wider, so the narrower wheel tread creates an unrealistically wide gap between the inside surface of the side frame and the wheel.
If the locomotive tire tread is narrower than HO standard, you probably will need all-new tires; not modifications of the old ones. This may mean remounting the drivers on SLIGHTLY shorter axles. This, in turn, could mean modification or replacement of the frame. Many model steam locos have cylinder blocks that are a bit too wide because our model tolerances are unprototypically generous in the area of the rods and valve gear. Most people don’t notice this, but a true Proto 87 model probably should be correct.
I’ve discussed this with people who have tried it, and have heard secondhand stories about others who’ve tried it. The consensus seems to be that true Proto 87 requires a small layout with a very modest roster because the entire interface between the roadbed and the bodies of the rolling stock, including almost 100% of the trackwork and 100% of the running gear, must be custom made to exacting standards.
I’m no machinist, so I’m content to accept NMRA standards in most
I wish I was that ambitious when I was 15 years old.
So I don’t see a decision here at all. If you are:
- a rivet counter
- you “would not be fully satisfied”
- Cost is not a factor.
Then it seems you should go with the Proto-87.
Also if cost is really not a factor nothing says you have to turn the wheels. Find a good machinest and have them start turning wheels. BTW - It won’t be just the locos wheels.
Hey all, I’ve just decided to go with Central Valley tie strips and Shinohara switches. I plan on super detailing the switches to get the desired effect.
Have you considered the super detailed turnouts from the Proto 87 Stores http://www.proto87.com/ ? They look almost as realistic as turnouts built to Proto:87 tolerances, and much more realistic than Shinohara. Micro Engineering turnouts are another option that can look good when detailed.
I love Proto 87 it’s so nice to see it whith all the track details, but be sure I will never build a Proto 87 track.
This track is largely time consuming to build, I feel it ok for a short part of track or something like a diorama but for a huge layout to much time involded!
I have french friends who use Proto 87 norms and as mentionned before, don’t be able to lay more than a good 2 meter of track by year, this include turnouts and the details.
I’m modeling in Nscale, but if I was modeling in HO I will use Shinohara for his versality and the numerous turnouts aviable.
As for an example the “Franklin and South Manchester”, the FSM of Mister Sellios use Shinohara track and I feel it extremly prototypical whith a good whaetering job and of course you can put track details like joint bars and other ones.
Just my opinion.
Marc
I’d say use ME or PECO track, that track has the best detail in my opinion
If you want a railroad to function, stick with Shinohara or Peco and add detailing. ME looks great but harder to lay.
It is interesting that you consider yourself a “major rivet counter” but are feelancing a “subsidiary” of of the Iowa Interstate which wasn’t formed until 1984, well after all the steam power was gone. Sounds like you don’t count any rivets above the top of the rail. 
I give a functioning model railroad with minimal problems the priority, I’ve handlaid track, I went to commercial track to get better details. I agree tolerances are going to be tighter going with the more precision track/wheels but will you compromise your brass to run on normal HO track where it might happen? I just won’t do that to my brass and I need compatibility for all of my equipment and I have too much of it to go turning wheels down. Nice for a small module for photography, but do a decent trackwork job, you won’t notice that much.