Proto87 or Code-88

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I’m thinking much of the railroad models I’d like to build and how far I’m willing to go with detailing them, and it’s pretty far honestly. For couplers, I’ve grown weary of my old stalwart, the Kadee #58 so I’m going to try Sergents and the compatible dummy couplers they market soon enough. Wheels though are a concern, I’m debating the pros and cons of Proto87 or Code-88 and here’s how I see the pros and cons:

Proto87

Pros: wheel treads and flanges are actually to scale also I like the idea of supporting something far from being commonly practiced amongst HO-scale modelers. Cons: only compatible on Proto87 layouts (well, regular HO layouts without turnouts) and expensive, the only game for wheels seems to be NWSL for now and the selection of replacement wheels is limited for axle lengths and rather expensive as they are.

Code88

Pros: Compatible with model railroads built to NMRA standards, which is virtually all out there. Does not require finding and using niche items that can be both not that easy to find and expensive. Cons: It’s a compromise and does not stand close-up scrutiny, though certainly looks better close up than conventional HO wheels.

Any thoughts or comments? I do not have a large collection so cost is not the biggest issue, though obviously as pointed out above, not insignificant either.

Alvie

2

Here are my thoughts,

Proto87 - Looks neat, but other than rolling stock and ‘some’ diesel wheel sets, there really is not a lot available. I suspect you will be spending more time converting your fleet, than running it. I think it may be great for a ‘Lone Wolf’.

Code88 - I suspect you are talking about the narrow tread wheel sets available from several firms. I have ‘some’ cars with them, and they run fine on my Atlas code 83 trackage, but they really ‘drop’ into the frogs of the club’s code 100 turnouts. They do not derail, but look a little ‘sloppy’ going through the turnouts. Again, are you planning to do engine wheels as well? Close viewing - My layout trackage is anywhere from 48" to 54" off the floor. Most of the trains run 4" - 8" from the edge of the layout. How often do you ‘see’ the wide wheel treads?

Sargents Couplers - I bought 5 or 6 sets of the ‘kits’ when they first came out. They take some patience to assemble! I would buy the ‘RTR’ ones at this point. They are ‘neat’; but like the prototype, they need to be ‘centered’ and the coupler face ‘opened’ to ‘make the joint’. I guess I am getting lazy in my old age, but the ‘auto couple’ feature of the Kadee sure makes it easy when operating(I cut off the trip pins and use a ‘skewer’ for uncoupling). I have a fair number of Kadee #58 semi-scale couplers, but they are touchy on less than perfect track(like at the club with those Atlas #6 turnouts). I just bought a bunch of #5 and #148 ‘bulk’ packs, so I guess I am satisfied with the oversize standard Kadee products.

This is not to say that I do not appreciate the new ‘fine scale’ products - but I am more concerned about running qualities and layout capable cars/engines that can handle being picked up once in a while. I do use DCC/Sound on my layout, so I am somewhat in the new ‘era’!

Jim

3

You are omitting a few things for P87:

  • turnouts have to be handlaid, or at least assembled from kits from P87 Stores. (http://www.proto87.com/)
  • some flex track has too much gauge widening for use in P87 (Atlas is probably too wide). Of course, Atlas flex track hardly looks like P87 with the water melon-size “spike heads”.
  • trucks and locomotive wheels need to be “equalized” - which is not the same as springing. Springing, when done right, provides equalization. Many model diesels have sufficient flexibility in their trucks to equalize enough for P87. These are pretty easy to convert to P87. There is some P87 production work for diesels and diesel trucks going on now.
  • P87 steam locomotive drivers are hard to come by. Available drivers may not be the size or style you want. I don’t have a lathe to turn my own.
  • Only some brass steam locomotives have springing or equalization. Plastic and die cast commercial models have rigid frames and need equalization modifications for use in P87.
  • Model steam locomotives are widened in the steam chest and cylinders to provide the extra space for the non-scale width drivers. How does one undo that when replacing with scale width drivers? Driver wheel base is sometimes lengthened to accommodate larger than scale flanges, too.
  • Minimum radius requirements go up due to restricted gauge widening on curves and in turnouts.

The last 4 e

4

code 88 with wheels is only the half way. You can also have better looking turnouts with RP3 and RP4. The flangeway can be smaller!

It’s easy to replace wheels.

The problem comes with steam engines. Replace the wheels.

We have this with H0-fine at FREMO.But there’s also an FREMO87 group. [:)]

Wolfgang

5

I agree, & support the thoughts of the previous responders. I myself wanted to dive-in Proto-87 with both feet. However, a couple things held me back; although I thought I was a good modeler, I did not measure up within .010 inch & to my liking, (well, at least yet)… 2) although I really enjoy the scale look of the Proto87 wheelsets, it was an extra challenge for me to ‘set’ them on rails. I set some grain cars out for display & one had P87 wheels, & I had some extra difficulty seating it on the display track (manu unknown -looked C83). Naturally I blamed the thin wheels, & then considered the running ability of them. I have used 88 series wheels without any issues, I really like them. As said before, it is an easy switch. I would suggest (if in your position) you order a set of each set of wheels, & then run them, really try them out, & see what you think. For me the 88’s are the compromise that fits ‘me’ best & my modeling style. For you, it may be something else.

As for couplers I like the Kaydee Scale couplers x58 series, & use them regulary. I also have Sergent 's on some of my nicer Photo Queens. I have modified a couple Kaydee units to couple with a Sergent by releiving the back of the ‘hook’ on a x58 so it will close & actuate into a Sergent, However, I would not trust ‘it’ in operations if coupled with another Kaydee or something other than a Sergent.

These are my experiences, & will hopefully give you some ‘food for thought’ in your endeavors, & I wish you luck, let us know how it goes!

6

I had considered going with the Code 88 after seeing some of it and was very impressed with the way it looks, but my problem with it came about because I have a “lot” of steam engines and as already been stated, what do you do there?

I finally went back to my original plan of using Kadee wheelsets and the Kadee “short shank” standard couplers as I also like to run long trains and the scale couplers look nice but they don’t have the strength to hold together on a long train with a grade.

So as with most everything it’s a “compromise”, RP-25 was designed for smooth operation, Proto 87 looks neat in pictures, so what do you want to do, run trains or take pictures?

Mark

WGAS

7

There is certainly some beautiful modeling possible with Proto87, particularly turnouts.

http://www.proto87.com

Personally I suspect I am not enough of a precisionist to make it all work as well as my current plain vanilla NMRA standards layout however. And since I have not achieved perfection with those standards I can only imagine what a finer scale set of standards would bring me.

Somewhat OT – but one thing that bugs me, maybe more than it should, is to see guys take the wheel sets that they have rejected for their freight cars but then – maybe feeling guilty about the waste – use those wheel sets as deteail near their modeled car shops or as freight car loads. That is when you really notice the huge wheel treads and flanges. Those are situations where ALL of us should be using Proto87 wheel sets!

Dave Nelson

8

Try: www.reboxx.com for GOOD HO wheelsets. TTFN…papasmurf

9

I wonder whether either Proto87 or Code88 is really worth the extra effort. For me, the NMRA RP standards have been a tremendous improvement over the pizza cutter wheels of my early Marklin days. I am sure the Finescale rails and wheel flanges show up on close-up photos, but how about when viewing your layout out of a normal perspective?

10

I think if you really want to detailed up close work you should go proto48. Personally, I don’t think the smaller scales are worth the effort.

Enjoy

Paul

11

Having used Lionel and 3 rail O for many years, I understand what you are saying. For modeling 19th Century railroading the difference between code 88 and code 110 wheels, and the finer flangeway turnouts are much more visible. The wheels are closer to the end of cars. And in narrow gauge, the smaller diameter wheels make the wider wheel treads appear that much more gross. With the smaller rail sizes (I use code 40-70 rail in HO), minimum-width flangeways look much better.

The same applies to the couplers with the much smaller cars and tenders. Kadee standard size knuckles are just too big to look right.

But the nice part about the “fine scale” standard using code 88 wheels is that properly gauged code 110 wheels work just fine, too. I don’t have to worry about getting a locomotive with the wider wheels or using cars that still have wider wheels on them. That’s why code 88 is a reasonable compromise for me.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

12

Hello all, I appreciate everyone’s input on this subject and am still thinking it over (no deadline on this decision that’s for sure!)

I am more a lone-wolf then a social model railroader, though I’d love to be operating, not just running, trains on a nice home layout

I am aware of Reboxx wheels, as I’ve used Intermountain semi-scale wheels much in the past. I one time heard they’re made in the same factory, though Intermountain does not make them to the multiple axle-widths. I’ve also spent much time on Proto87.com ogling the turnouts they offer, and will likely buy a couple as they’re that nice.

My holdup with either is steam and the only way I know of to have accurately sized and detailed wheels if going either Proto87 or Code88 is to get them custom made. And well, I did find someone who will do them in Proto87 and likely Code88 as well if asked. I only have one steam engine to convert, one day two, so we’re not talking a fleet here. OTOH the steam model I have in mind to convert is not sprung or equalized, so converting it to proto87 is likely not going to happen.

Alvie

13

[quote user=“fwright”]

cats think well of me:

Proto87

Pros: wheel treads and flanges are actually to scale also I like the idea of supporting something far from being commonly practiced amongst HO-scale modelers. Cons: only compatible on Proto87 layouts (well, regular HO layouts without turnouts) and expensive, the only game for wheels seems to be NWSL for now and the selection of replacement wheels is limited for axle lengths and rather expensive as they are.

You are omitting a few things for P87:

  • turnouts have to be handlaid, or at least assembled from kits from P87 Stores. (http://www.proto87.com/)
  • some flex track has too much gauge widening for use in P87 (Atlas is probably too wide). Of course, Atlas flex track hardly looks like P87 with the water melon-size “spike heads”.
  • trucks and locomotive wheels need to be “equalized” - which is not the same as springing. Springing, when done right, provides equalization. Many model diesels have sufficient flexibility in their trucks to equalize enough for P87. These are pretty easy to convert to P87. There is some P87 production work for diesels and diesel trucks going on now.
  • P87 steam locomotive drivers are hard to come by. Available drivers may not be the size or style you want. I don’t have a lathe to turn my own.
  • Only some brass steam locomotives have springing or equalization. Plastic and die cast commercial models have rigid frames and need equalization modifications for use in P87.
  • Model steam locomotives are widened in the steam chest and cylinders to provide the extra space for the non-scale width drivers. How does one undo that when replacing with scale width drivers? Driver wh
14

Hello Sheldon,

You certainly present some good points on my original question.

Yes, the issue of spacing between the trucks and the wheel faces has been something I’ve thought about. With some older pieces of mine equipped with Code-88 wheels I’m going to try working around that. But honestly I’ve still come to prefer the narrower width of the wheels over the gaps between truck and wheel faces.

I should’ve mentioned before that when I’d run trains at a modular club years ago, I had numerous pieces with Kadee 58s and many with Intermountain semi-scale wheels and despite the less than stellar track work, all Code 100, they operated just fine. So, I have few fears of using Code-88 wheels and finer scale couplers.

A reason I’d like to switch to Sergent couplers, and the Glatzl dummies, is not just how I’m in awe of working, scale knuckle couplers, but to me they offer significant play value. With Kadees I’ve uncoupled using skewers and I’ve tried out electro-magnets and still prefer more manual coupling as I have done much of before.

From 2-feet away, I can notice the differences between tread widths and coupler size, but I have no intention of looking at my trains from never closer then 2-feet away [:)]

Also, as far as resources spent on fine-tuning and making a layout work to accommodate said finer-scale equipment, well yeah I do accept I will have to do that, and I’m okay with that.

Overall, the response to this query has been that I’ll have to be extra vigilant about making sure track and rolling stock are to spec, but I do not mind that, yet a tone I’ve gotten, from no one in particular, is that I’ll be doing something somewhat “dicey” by using more fine-scale running gear. I think these concerns over reliability are well founded, but again to operate trains with any variety of wheel or coupler size is still dependant on people making sure said items, track, couplers, wheels etc. are in gauge, to spec, the right height e

15

Alvie

I think you are missing the points a little. You are not doing anything “dicey” by using code 88 or P87 wheels. Each of the 3 wheel standards has a corresponding track standard that it works well with. It is the crossing of the track standard for a different intended wheel standard that makes things a little less reliable.

P87 wheels > P87 track

code 88 wheels > fine scale track

code 110 wheels > NMRA track

All 3 combinations are thoroughly proven. Crossing over between the last two sets can be done, but is a little less reliable and a little more finicky. Crossing between P87 and the other standards doesn’t work very well.

Using smaller couplers also puts more of a premium on good trackwork and coupler mounting.

For many, the time consumed in going to finer standards is often seen as subtracting from time for more important goals. When I first started in the hobby as a young adult, I did not understand why anybody would want anything less than the most accurate and complete detail they could get or put on each car and locomotive. I have since learned that others may have different goals that conflict with uber-accuracy. Many prefer the “3ft rule” or “good enough”, especially when the roster is not small. That’s why there are different standards for wheels, track, and couplers. We each get to choose.

Unfortunately, there is an underlying tone from both sides of the coin. The P87/fine scale standards often imply or assume that one is not a “real” mr if he is not pursuing a finer standard. So the natural push-back (with perhaps a little defensiveness) is that the coarser standards work very well, and there are valid reasons for sticking with them.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

16

Fred,

Thank you for your thoughts on this topic.

As the hobby is able to drive forward more and more to levels of scale perfection only dreamed of in one decade there is of course the human tendency to have an inflated better model railroader then thou attitude because their wheels are narrower and the couplers more to scale.

I think leaning towards Code88, as that’d allow me, potentially, to at least have some interchangeability with other model railroads. For steam engine wheels, I’d like to get some custom made “one day” as I’m only thinking of one model, and a steam model with Code88 running gear will be a unique and rare model indeed :slight_smile:

As for Proto87, it still interests me of course and I see myself maybe setting up a diesel only Proto87 diorama as an experiment “one day”.

Alvie

17

As always, Fred has made excelent points and articulated them well.

To fo