Skip to main content

Originally Posted by mwb:
Originally Posted by Ukaflyer:
If you look at the NMRA website there is an area that is actually devoted to the 'bigger picture' and it does have standards. In fact it has definition and is measurable as well. 
 
With regards to scenery, motive power, rolling stock, electrical and other areas the NMRA clearly has standards and calls it such and describes clearly how each of these are defined and how it can be measured for an individual to achieve all of this. The end result is that the individual becomes a 'scale modeller'.
 
.....the NMRA has declared it for us on the website for all to see, even though we as individuals slugged it out with each other to see it differently.

I'm surprised that the S SIG didn't either link to this area direct or have it as part of the website.

The S Scale SIG - SSS is on the NMRA's site: http://www.nmra.org/special-interest-groups

Which refers one back to links Ed posted on the first page of this thread.

 

We have come full circle.

 

Rusty

Originally Posted by Rusty Traque:
 

Which refers one back to links Ed posted on the first page of this thread.

 

We have come full circle.

 

Rusty

Rusty,

 

The links I am referring to are on the NMRA website itself as below, paragraphs 2 and 3 are the key ones.

 

http://www.nmra.org/education/achievement-program

 

From this page take a look at the categorie section on the right hand tool bar and it goes into a lot more detail.

Originally Posted by Ukaflyer:

 

 
 
 the NMRA sets standards for this specific area, which we now know to be somewhere between true scale and hi-rail, it's an NMRA standard.
 

In model rocketry, it is called near scale… So now we have four categories of S standard gauge:

 

American Flyer, aka tinplate or vintage -- and not to be confused with Flyonel – mostly running of code 172 and larger rail.

 

Hi-rail with smaller flanges than AF but larger than near-scale, running on rail somewhere between code 132 and code 148.  Largely compatible with AF and near-scale (depending on the turnouts used).

 

Near-scale, very well defined by the NMRA and adopted by S-SIG, aka scale.

 

Proto scale, aka P64, fine scale and not compatible with near-scale.

 

Awesome!

 

Can anyone guess at the percentages for each?

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Originally Posted by Tom Stoltz:
Originally Posted by Ukaflyer:

 

 
 
 the NMRA sets standards for this specific area, which we now know to be somewhere between true scale and hi-rail, it's an NMRA standard.
 

In model rocketry, it is called near scale… So now we have four categories of S standard gauge:

 

American Flyer, aka tinplate or vintage -- and not to be confused with Flyonel – mostly running of code 172 and larger rail.

 

Hi-rail with smaller flanges than AF but larger than near-scale, running on rail somewhere between code 132 and code 148.  Largely compatible with AF and near-scale (depending on the turnouts used).

 

Near-scale, very well defined by the NMRA and adopted by S-SIG, aka scale.

 

Proto scale, aka P64, fine scale and not compatible with near-scale.

 

Awesome!

 

Can anyone guess at the percentages for each?

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

 

Tom,

 

Do you need to amend your list with the standards used by the UK S scale group as below?

 

 

SSMRS Standard Gauge Wheel and Track Standards

 

Wheel Dimensions

 

Description

Prototype

S Scale

S Coarse

A

Tyre Width

1/2"

0.086"

0.125"

BB

Back-to-back

4' -5 5/8"

0.838"

0.781"

C

Tyre Coning

D

Flange Depth

1/8"

0.018"

0.039"

E

Flange Width

1/8"

0.018"

0.039"

F

Chamfer Depth

1/4"

0.004"

N/A

 Flange/Tread Radius

5/8"

0.010"

0.020"

Originally Posted by Ukaflyer:
riginally Posted by Rusty Traque:
 

Which refers one back to links Ed posted on the first page of this thread.

 

We have come full circle.

 

Rusty

Rusty,

 

The links I am referring to are on the NMRA website itself as below, paragraphs 2 and 3 are the key ones.

 

http://www.nmra.org/education/achievement-program

 

From this page take a look at the categorie section on the right hand tool bar and it goes into a lot more detail.

Those really are there to set ground rules for recognition awards.  Those not members of the NMRA cannot apply for those awards. The AP program is nothing new, it's been there since before I joined in the early 1970's.

 

That doesn't mean there aren't S folks (or other scales) out there that do meet or exceed the NMRA requirements.

 

I'm not one of them, I lack the patience and drive (I'm rattling around somewhere in the "average" range.)  Throwing a couple of detail parts on a stock locomotive or freight car every now and then is just fine by me.  I still consider myself a scale modeller.

 

Rusty

Last edited by Rusty Traque
Originally Posted by Rusty Traque:
Originally Posted by Ukaflyer:
riginally Posted by Rusty Traque:
 

Which refers one back to links Ed posted on the first page of this thread.

 

We have come full circle.

 

Rusty

Rusty,

 

The links I am referring to are on the NMRA website itself as below, paragraphs 2 and 3 are the key ones.

 

http://www.nmra.org/education/achievement-program

 

From this page take a look at the categorie section on the right hand tool bar and it goes into a lot more detail.

 

...... (I'm rattling around somewhere in the "average" range.)  Throwing a couple of detail parts on a stock locomotive or freight car every now and then is just fine by me.  I still consider myself a scale modeller.

 

Rusty

+1

 

Mark in Oregon

Originally Posted by Ukaflyer:
Originally Posted by Tom Stoltz:

Yes, it would seem 'S Coarse' should to be added to the aka's for near-scale.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

How close is the scale to true scale/NMRA data for profiles?

They are the same except for wheel width in coarse compared to near-scale.  Near-scale now uses a width of .110" (I think it used to be .125") and Coarse use .125" as the wheel width.  That’s a difference of a little less than 1/64" (31/32").

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

My impression of the responses so far is that the scale guys know exactly how to define "scale" and understand the purpose and limitations of the definition (aka "standards").  Good operation and interoperability of scale track and rolling stock is the goal.  The quality of scenery is not germane to good operation or interoperability and is not part of the scale definition.  That's the way it has been for many decades and is accepted by thousands of model railroaders everywhere.

 

The high-rail guys have yet to propose a definition for "high-rail" that is broadly accepted by most all of the high-railers.  Stirring the pot with disdain for the scale guys does not constitute a definition of high-rail.  Perhaps each group should focus on defining their own interest area without undue concern for other areas.  A new idea, eh?

 

The high-rail guys also strenuously object to the accepted scale definition which has no bearing on the high-rail side of the hobby.  Why it even matters to a high-railer what the scale guys call themselves is beyond comprehension.  Why not just let the scale guys enjoy their own widely-accepted definitions without criticism?  If you do not agree with it, what does it matter to an owner of a high-rail layout?  It has no effect on his layout.

 

Some folks like vanilla and others prefer chocolate.  What is wrong with that?  Let each enjoy his preferred flavor without prejudice.

 

Cheers.......Ed L.

Last edited by Ed Loizeaux

"Near-scale, very well defined by the NMRA and adopted by S-SIG, aka scale.

 Proto scale, aka P64, fine scale and not compatible with near-scale.

 

Can anyone guess at the percentages for each?"

 

   Actually the common usage term is "scale" not "near scale"for the RP-25 wheels  and "proto" or "fine scale" for the prototypically sized wheels. 

 

  As far as percentages I'm guessing about 40% toy train and 60% scale modelers since HO is almost all scale and has the largest number of participants. The large number of N toy train runners helps out the toy train side a bit though. If anyone wants to run the numbers it would be interesting to see the results.....DaveB

 

Last edited by daveb
Originally Posted by Ed Loizeaux:

My impression of the responses so far is that the scale guys know exactly how to define "scale" and understand the purpose and limitations of the definition (aka "standards").  Good operation and interoperability of scale track and rolling stock is the goal.  The quality of scenery is not germane to good operation or interoperability and is not part of the scale definition.  That's the way it has been for many decades and accepted by thousands of model railroaders everywhere.

 

 

So why does the NMRA define standards for all the bits you choose to ignore which actually makes up a scale railroad. It's a bit like building a layout to your select criteria and populating it with loads of Gilbert accessories and still calling it scale modelling. Weird!

 

Are you saying that the NMRA has got it wrong about the other areas that even they have agreed are part of the bigger picture?

 "Thinning the roof there required a lot of careful sanding with the Dremel.  That burned me out on completing the caboose and I sent it off to the Island of Uncompleted Projects. "

 

   Yeah that doesn't sound like fun. On the other hand the IR caboose looks like it has a cast on roof walk and slanted cupola front which might be more work to fix? Maybe I'll see some of these at O/S scale west next month? ........DaveB

Okay, we may be fractionated, but, hopefully, we all know what we are trying to achieve with our modeling. I can further fractionate this discussion by saying that there are sub groups of all the groups that we have identified in this thread so far.

 

If people ask me, I tell them that I am a Toy Train "Operator".  That is to differentiate me from those who "collect" Toy Trains.  I have some collectable pieces, but I am not a "Collector".  All of my locomotives  and rolling stock are weathered (with powdered chalk that is not sealed, so it will wash off) and more that 3/4 of my original Gilbert pieces were basket cases with almost no collectable value that I have repainted and/or decaled or modified.  I have some Marx, K Line O, Lionel O and Athearn & AHM HO pieces that I have "converted" and well as "Flyonel"

 

I also run scratchbuilt cars, craftsman kits, AM,PRS, Downs, Putt and SHS that I have made AF compatible.  I run on Gargraves track with Gargraves and original AF turnouts because that was all that was readily available that would accommodate this mish-mosh of stuff when I built this layout, but if I were to rebuild, I would probably use AM track and turnouts.

 

The layout is detailed with scenery and structures about to the level of the kind of HO railroads that were featured in Model Railroader in the late 1950's which was the look that inspired me as a kid and everything is to a standard of "good enough" (because that is the limit of my skill level).

 

It is also designed so that it looks best at eye level, but it is only 40" above the floor, so my grandkids can see it and operate some features and there is an operating rule adults must operate the layout while seated in a chair with castors, so they can follow their train by scooting around in the chair. There are some scenic "tricks" such as used John Allen that employ "forced perspective" and they only work at eye level.  If you stand up you lose the illusion.  (but you don't need to get up on a ladder if something derails).   

 

Visitors who are HO "Scale Modelers" say my layout is more detailed than most of the HO scale models they see, with more elaborate scenery, and is operated in a more realistic fashion than they are used to.  

 

However, I am a TOY TRAIN OPERATOR who chose to make his layout look like a 1950's HO layout.  I am not any different than a Toy Train Operator who chose to make his layout look like Department Store Display Layout, or chose to make his layout look like what a toy train layout built by a Dad and a 10 year old looked like in 1959.  I have used some scale elements in doing so, and I run some "Hi Rail" locomotive and cars, but just as a means to an end. In the 1940's I would have been called a "Hi Railer" but the term has changed in meaning since then.

 

When I go to buy something for this layout, I am thrilled with the NMRA and NASG standards because then I know what I need to do to modify the product for this layout.  If I buy an AM model, I know I have to add grab irons and specify Hi Rail trucks.  If I buy a PRS boxcar kit from eBay, I know I need Hi Rail wheelsets and AF compatible couplers. I know not to buy a "scale" Downs Locomotive from the 1950's because I can't find compatible "Hi Rail" drivers. 

 

I was a "voice calling in the wilderness" in this forum and the CTT forum, predicting that it would be a "mess" when Lionel defined "Scale" differently than what was currently accepted in the NASG literature. The most recent AF catalog states that "your American Flyer locomotive or car can run on any track system that is designated as S-gauge" yet anyone with any experience knows that scale track and turnouts will not accommodate "traditional American Flyer flanges" I was sorry when the cylindrical hopper truck fiasco came to pass, and I will go out on a limb and predict that the fast track switches will also have some significant glitches with compatibility which will arouse the ire of some.

 

I, too, am mystified, with the ire that some Hi Railers or Toy Train guys have directed toward Ed.  Ed has always treated me fairly and with courtesy.  He's one of the good guys, and has promoted what is good for all of us who model in S gauge.

 

Little Tommy

Originally Posted by daveb:

 "Thinning the roof there required a lot of careful sanding with the Dremel.  That burned me out on completing the caboose and I sent it off to the Island of Uncompleted Projects. "

 

   Yeah that doesn't sound like fun. On the other hand the IR caboose looks like it has a cast on roof walk and slanted cupola front which might be more work to fix? Maybe I'll see some of these at O/S scale west next month? ........DaveB

I think it would be easier to remove the IR's roofwalk than thin SU roof. I'm thinking of just "fleshing out" the cupola ends and ignoring the slight slant.  But, it's WAY down on my priority list.

 

Speaking for myself, I'm much more comfortable working with plastic than resin.

 

Rusty

 

>> Ukaflyer wrote:  So why does the NMRA define standards for all the bits you choose to ignore which actually makes up a scale railroad.

You should pose that question to the NMRA.  Let us all know the answer when you receive a response. 

 

>> It's a bit like building a layout to your select criteria and populating it with loads of Gilbert accessories and still calling it scale modelling. Weird!

The scale guys realize and accept that established standards are for the purpose of good operation and interchangeability.  That is it.  There is no more.  Scale folks can take scale equipment to any other scale layout built to the same standards and the stuff all plays with each other very well.  Gilbert accessories, scenery, number of ties per linear foot, weathering, fantasy paint jobs, ballast (or not), etc., etc. have no bearing on operation or interoperability.  Thus, visual matters are not included in the scale standards.  Some scale layouts are ugly.  Some are beautiful.  But they all enjoy track, wheels and couplers that work with each other.  (Kadee being the defacto standard.)

 

This explanation has been posted several times now and all you can do is disagree with it -- over and over.  I would suggest you take your complaints to the NMRA.  Let us all know the response you get.  I am sure it will be illuminating.

 

>> Are you saying that the NMRA has got it wrong about the other areas that even they have agreed are part of the bigger picture?

I never said anyone got anything wrong.  What I have said is that the scale guys have a definition of their hobby which they all generally agree with.  The Flyer guys can all agree on what constitutes a Flyer hobby.  I'd wager that a Plasticville building on a Flyer layout still makes it a Flyer layout.  But the Flyer guys know that already.

 

It appears that the some high-rail guys are hell bent on criticism of any and all things related to a scale thought pattern even though it does not pertain to or affect high-rail in any way.  This is really sad.

 

Still waiting to see a widely accepted definition of "S high-rail".  Can you focus  on that a for a while?  Maybe it is asking too much?

 

Have a happy new year....Ed L.

Originally Posted by Ed Loizeaux:

 

 

It appears that the some high-rail guys are hell bent on criticism of any and all things related to a scale thought pattern even though it does not pertain to or affect high-rail in any way.  This is really sad.

 

 

Have a happy new year....Ed L.

Ed,

 

I think you might go back over the posts to find out just who is calling who what…

 

Lobster claw couplers and pizza cutter flanges are not Hi-rail terms any more than they are Flyer terms, however I do see these terms used by the scale crowd over and over again to describe S hobbyists that model to a different level and use different equipment.  As I said earlier I do not like the slur.  And now you, from somewhere, have picked up the idea that the ‘others’ are insulting your domain?  And now you are trying to portray yourself as victim… the scaler is the victim??? 

 

I also don’t think we – the not-so-scalers -- are trying to redefine your scale criteria.  We have become aware that it not as ‘scale’ as you lead us to believe, or perhaps as you have lead yourselves to believe.  I feel that all we are asking is for your aspect of the hobby to accept the rest of us and to realize that we are not some albatross around the neck of S scale (or is it S gauge?). 

 

daveb, two things: near-scale is an accepted term in other scale modeling hobbies and in this case it truly does apply.  I realize that it is not an NMRA term and don’t have a problem with that.  However on an international level, coarse, certainly does describe it, eh?  The other thing is when I ask for percentages in an S forum I would aspect the answer to be in S hobbyist.

 

This is ludicrous.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Originally Posted by Tom Stoltz:

Lobster claw couplers and pizza cutter flanges are not Hi-rail terms any more than they are Flyer terms, however I do see these terms used by the scale crowd over and over again to describe S hobbyists that model to a different level and use different equipment.  As I said earlier I do not like the slur.

Pizza cutters originated in the HO realm back when AHM/Rivarrossi products with NEM flanges (European Standard) became popular in the US in the 1960's-1970's.  AHM steam locomotives were also the best detailed mass market steam locomotives for a reasonable price.  AHM imported some pretty nice passenger cars, also.  Nobody in the HO realm considered people using AHM stuff as "hirailers" or tinplaters."

 

Plus, back then, even those that used the so-called "NMRA" horn hook coupler were still considered HO scale modelers. 

 

Neither of these two issues were considered "hirail" or "tinplate" in HO.

 

A person could have one of these straight out of the box...

 

tyco_steam_mikado_208_01_prr

...and still be considered an "HO Scaler."

 

The first time I ever heard the term "lobster claw coupler," it was in the O realm, referring to the oversize Lionel couplers.

 

I've also hear the term "Hi-Scale" (boy, if that doesn't make any sense...) being bandied about for those that have deep flanges but use Kadee couplers.

 

Rusty

Attachments

Images (1)
  • tyco_steam_mikado_208_01_prr
Last edited by Rusty Traque

"when I ask for percentages in an S forum I would aspect the answer to be in S hobbyist."

 

    Hi Tom,  I guess it depends on your modeling tastes. I model in almost all scales so scale to  me is more than S scale and toy train or hirail is more than flyer or American models. I feel S scale has more in common with O,HO, or N scales than it does with flyer and that Flyer and O 3  rail have more in common than Flyer has with S scale. The attitudes and goals of the hobbyist mean more to me than the scale they are working in. I might be working on an S car today and an HO, N, or O car tomorrow......DaveB 

Last edited by daveb

"Still waiting to see a widely accepted definition of "S high-rail" "

 

  Hi Ed, In general I've always seen hi rail used to describe a layout that was more realistic than a toy train layout but still used taller rail and larger flanged wheels. I recall many of them in the old days when O guys were using Lionel stuff to build more realistic O layouts without buying more expensive 2 rail O scale stuff. I guess S hi rail is an equivalent method of making more realistic layouts without buying all scale stuff. I think the guys with roots in flyer or lionel are more likely to become hi railers than guys who enter the hobby in the scale sector. HO guys generally have no reason to build in hi rail because they have no toy train equipment to accommodate. It will be interesting to see how S hi railers define their equipment and also to see if there are any hi railers that were previously scale modelers in another scale? .....DaveB

>> Ed, I think you might go back over the posts to find out just who is calling who what…

 

That is an interesting suggestion.  Here is what just one person has stated over the recent past.  In my opinion, every one of these remarks exhibits an anti-scale bias without just cause.

 

July 20 -- the few don't have the right to represent the many.

 

July 20 -- As I said, an individual or a small number of people don't have the right to represent the many on their own needs or specific requirements,

 

July 20 -- My perception is that as soon as Flyer, tinplate or hi-rail is mentioned you get on the defensive and look for any means to dispel what is said in favour of your own agenda

 

Dec 26 -- a very small group of scale people are wishing manufactures to make items only to scale proportions, isn't this being a bit selfish and not considering others needs

 

Dec 26 -- S is not the preserve of the S scalers only, there are others out there that need to have an input as to what they want.

 

Dec 26 -- you could easily read into it that S is for scale people only and that the rest should either convert or find another gauge.

 

Dec 27 -- the SIG group is a standard lot rather than a modelling group.

 

Dec 30 -- the SIG people are focused more on the standards than the bigger picture.

 

Dec 30 -- OK Ed, it seems you like to post controversial topics

 

Dec 30 -- and get people sparring

 

Dec 30 -- The S Scale SIG defines scale modeling, <snip>  I don't see the bigger picture mentioned, do you?

 

Dec 30 -- the bigger picture is a taboo subject for S scalers on the SIG group and that only wheel and track standards count

 

>> Lobster claw couplers and pizza cutter flanges are not Hi-rail terms any more than they are Flyer terms, however I do see these terms used by the scale crowd over and over again to describe S hobbyists that model to a different level and use different equipment.  As I said earlier I do not like the slur.

 

Those nicknames have been in common use for decades by most everyone in S -- including the Flyer guys and high-railers.  I think of it as a convenient way to describe things.  That is what nicknames are for -- convenience.  To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed it was a slur -- until now.  If you feel that way, why not politely request that different terminology be used and provide the preferred words.  To not follow your polite request would be rude.

 

>> And now you, from somewhere, have picked up the idea that the ‘others’ are insulting your domain?  And now you are trying to portray yourself as victim… the scaler is the victim???

 

If you read the comments made above by just one fellow, it is not hard to see that he is insulting and has an anti-scale attitude.  Just read his junk and think about it.  Would you like me to provide a laundry list of similar anti-scale comments from another fellow?  Just ask.

 

>> I also don’t think we – the not-so-scalers -- are trying to redefine your scale criteria. 

 

First of all, it is not "my" scale criteria.  It is the same common understanding used by the NMRA, NASG, S SIG and gosh knows who else.  It has been in use for 50 years or more without much controversy by the scale modelers of this hobby.  It is clear (to me) that some folks want to replace the accepted standard definition with something else.  But that something else remains undefined.  The scale guys are happy with it.  Why not let them have their happiness?

 

>> We have become aware that it not as ‘scale’ as you lead us to believe, or perhaps as you have lead yourselves to believe.

 

I have not led you to think that "scale" is anything more than following the NMRA standards as they exist.  What you believe is up to you and beyond my control or influence.  Nor have I led myself to believe that "scale" is anything more than following the NMRA standards.  I think some folks are becoming delusional about things they erroneously perceive.   You might have confused someone else with me.  I will challenge you to produce an email or two from me to support your (untrue) contention that "scale" is anything other than conforming to the NMRA standards. 

 

>> I feel that all we are asking is for your aspect of the hobby to accept the rest of us and to realize that we are not some albatross

 

If you feel like an albatross, I would suggest you discuss that directly with the person who made you feel that way.  I cannot speak for other scale guys.  I can only speak for myself.  If I have been derogatory toward the Flyer guys or the high-rail guys, please show me some emails from me and let's discuss it.  If it was someone else, you should contact them about your feelings.

 

>> around the neck of S scale (or is it S gauge?). 

 

Using the words as commonly understood, "S scale" refers to those modelers who conform to the NMRA standards.  "S gauge" refers to those who do not.  I guess the selection of words depends upon whose neck you are hanging.

 

>> This is ludicrous. 

>> Tom Stoltz

 

We agree on that.

Ed L.

Last edited by Ed Loizeaux

I  don't post much but was trying to inject a little humor in this post. I have been dragged in and have a few thoughts. 

 

When I started back up in the hobby I was looking for ideas. Looked at joining a club and was told the scalers took over.  I went HUH and the problem is? Fast forward and the hirailers took over. Huh?

 

 

John Allen, I believe most have heard of his work, used his old non conforming loop couplers or what ever they were.

 

So someone explain what the problem is? 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll give it a shot.

 

We are all S gaugers. Under that heading are the following subdivisions:

 

scale........utilizing NMRA/NASG standards for rail code (code 110 or smaller)? and couplers. Hope I got that right. Running scale proportioned motive power and rolling stock.

 

Flyer........utilizing original Gilbert track, running Gilbert motive power and rolling stock.

 

Hi rail......utilizing track height (insert code) capable of supporting larger flanged wheels associated with the use of Gilbert, Flyonel, SHS/MTH, AM or various other motive power and rolling stock.

 

Scenery is a separate category and can be constructed as to the look desired from bare to toylike to realistic. Therefore each subdivision can range from bare to realistic in appearance in essence creating more sub categories.

 

The "animosity" between the subdivisions exists because each one thinks their discipline is the best and they are trying to convince the others of that fact. What is best is in the eye of the beholder.

 

True Flyer operators may not run anything but Gilbert equipment. Hi railers may run only one of either SHS, AM, Flyonel, etc. True scalers may not let a piece of Gilbert near their domain. Expanding onward, there are degrees to each subdivision as to what may cross the boundaries. IE: scalified Gilbert cars, Flyonel running with Flyer, all manufacturers running together on Hi rail.

 

In the end, without Hi rail, which Ron from AM once told me sold at a 90 to 10% ratio, the product would not be available to be offered with the scale option. And without that scale representation, the great looking products now available would not be as realistic as they now are.

 

Maybe OGR needs 2 S gauge forums to avoid confusion, S scale and S Flyer/hi rail.

 

I'm sure this will add to the firestorm, but I gave it a shot.

 

Rich

Add Reply

Post

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×