This is another of those posts that is a bookmark, for me, to remind myself of something I’ll want to come back to.
Individually these would have been terrific finds but, for some reason, they appeared back-to-back in my search results. Both articles discuss Proto87 standards.
Proto 87: A Practical Option for Modelling Better Trackwork and Wheels
Ian Millard posted the above PDF to his Liverpool Range blog. Instead of simply presenting a direct comparison between the typical (NMRA) track and wheel standards for HO, it is the story of one modellers relationship with adopting finescale standards for his own work and appropriately annotated with just enough technical notes to provide dimension. Maybe it’s just me, but I relate better to this style of presentation and its more conversational tone is something that I can respond to it – if only just by talking to myself over a Sunday morning’s coffee.
The document includes a rather nice diagram illustrating the role of each component of a typical turnout and their affect on the wheel. I’ve led several “learn to handlay a turnout” workshops and a diagram like this would be useful to helpful explain why each rail is important.
P87: What will it take to successfully promo?
This next link comes from the RMWeb.co.uk forum:
Prof Klyzlr asks a question of what might be done to promote the Proto87 standards and increase its visibility in the American model railway scene? In the pages that follow his original post flows a unique conversation that, I feel, quite nicely and maturely works through the question and helps frame something of a response.
I enjoyed the comments that made the original question, posed to discuss the state of Proto87 in America, somewhat borderless by introducing the German approach to finescale standards for 1/87 models and the British 4mm standards. More than debating the relative pro’s and con’s of each, this is one of those threads that helped me understand the role of these standards in American HO.