Frequently Asked Questions
- Is Proto:87 compatible with standard HO?
- No. Standard HO flanges will not fit through Proto:87 flangeways. Proto:87 wheels are too narrow and spaced too far apart to pass through standard HO frogs without derailing
- Why not make a standard that is close to prototype, but compatible with standard HO?
- We didn't take this approach because it would have implied another compromise standard. Sooner or later someone would have been asking for a standard that is as close as practical to the prototype. If you want to model to some HO-like standard, go ahead, but please don't confuse the world by calling it "Proto:87."
- Is Proto:87 simply a matter of shrinking the prototype dimensions to 1:87.1 scale?
- Not quite. Proto:87 allows for reasonable manufacturing tolerances that would disappear if the prototype were merely factored down.
- I'm using the code 88 wheels, they look pretty good, why would I bother with Proto:87?
- First of all, wheels are only the start of the equation. Once you've seen it, Proto:87 track is far more noticeable than finescale wheels. Secondly, you should note that code 88 wheels are outside the HO standard, which allows for wheels no narrower than code 108. Code 88 wheels will not operate smoothly on all standard HO track. Many people do have success with them on a subset of HO track (I'm told Shinohara and Micro-Engineering work), but they have implicitly chosen a tighter standard than HO.
- What's the minimum radius?
- Because the flanges are closer to the rail heads, the minimum radius is definitely broader than standard HO. A decent rule of thumb is 50% greater than the minimum radius for equivalent equipment in HO. See multiple treatises on this subject in the archives.