Is S scale still an option?

The MTH / SHS track is listed as code 125 but then I see folks saying it's actually 138.  What is it? 

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

The MTH / SHS track is listed as code 125 but then I see folks saying it's actually 138.  What is it?

Code 138 representing prototype 125 pound per yard rail.  Hence, the confusion.

***EDIT***  Ooops, Tom is correct below. 155 pound rail.

Rusty

It is NOT code 125. The rail height is .138". Supposedly it is an accurate model of a long out of use PRR 155# rail. I used the MTH flex track to build my layout.

Thanks Fellas!   Good prices on MTH Flex track out there - so I wanted to make sure before I bought some that it'd work with the FV Switches. 

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

The MTH / SHS track is listed as code 125 but then I see folks saying it's actually 138.  What is it?

Try this .pdf:

Tom, I am not clear how to convert the dimensions on that drawing. It says the scale of the rail cross section is 10:1. If I divide the dimensions, I assume these are inches, that makes the rail height .345", clearly not correct. What am I missing?

"All Santa Fe high-speed transcontinental lines have been designated as 131-132-pound rail territory. That means that much of that mileage and all new rail laid in that territory is 131-132-pound rail except in . yards and other localities where lighter rail is preferable. The new standard 115-pound section will shortly replace the present 112-pound. Other rail weights in use by the Santa Fe are 60, 75, · 90, 110 and 112-pound. The three last-mentioned sections were standard on Santa Fe main lines for many years and considerable presentday Santa Fe rail mileage consists of those weights of rail. All Santa Fe rails are steel and have been for many years. Beginning with 1936 all rails have been control cooled by the manufacturers to eliminate as far as possible interior defects in the head of the rail."  - Santa Fe Today, #5.  pg. 22

https://www.railsandtrails.com...Today%20No.%205r.pdf

So 155# isn't too far off for ATSF mainline as they upgraded their 75#, 90# and 112# mains to 132# or 115#.  I'm guessing Argentine to Topeka (IE: Lawrence) was probably upgraded to 132# as it was on the Chief route - so that's not a huge disparity.

@AmFlyer posted:

Tom, I am not clear how to convert the dimensions on that drawing. It says the scale of the rail cross section is 10:1. If I divide the dimensions, I assume these are inches, that makes the rail height .345", clearly not correct. What am I missing?

The dimensions are metric.  That's why I posted the drawing I made in another thread.  Here is is again...

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

The MTH and Fox Valley rail scales to a prototype section height of 8.83". Modern 115# rail is 6-5/8" high, 132# rail is 7-1/8" high. Then 115# rail scales to Code 100 in S scale. Problem is no high rail equipment will run on Code 100 rail, nor Code 125. For high rail wheels the MTH and Fox Valley are the smallest rails that work. I have some Code 125 rail on my layout for the TT pit rails and all the guard/guide rails on the bridges. It is so close to the  .138 rail it looks the same on the layout. The most noticeable thing about the Code 125 rail is the railhead width is wider than the .138 MTH rail.

I have no issue with the appearance of the MTH rail on my layout, I know it is too tall for modern track but set in the scenery with the ballast detailing it looks close enough to scale.

Thanks Tom, I need to save that drawing.

@Trinity River Bottoms Boomer posted:

Strummer, I found your tender convert to KD couplers very interesting.  This is what the hobby is all about.  Would love to see the vintage equipment you picked up and converted as well!

Joe

Thought I'd share a few, too:

This was the first item I ever bought as a kid that cost more than a candy bar.  It never ran well--it was only $18 at the time anyway--but I could not bear to part with it. So I dressed it up with a new motor conversion kit from Doug Peck at Portlines Hobbies and some decoration. It's slow and noisy but reliable and earns its keep.

Terry

@TOKELLY posted:

This was the first item I ever bought as a kid that cost more than a candy bar.  It never ran well--it was only $18 at the time anyway--but I could not bear to part with it. So I dressed it up with a new motor conversion kit from Doug Peck at Portlines Hobbies and some decoration. It's slow and noisy but reliable and earns its keep.

Terry

Looks good to me.

Rusty

@Tom Stoltz posted:

Thought I'd share a few, too:

Those are all very nice; how did you manage to get a Kadee into the K5 pilot!?! 

Mark in Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Those are all very nice; how did you manage to get a Kadee into the K5 pilot!?! 

Mark in Oregon

Hi Mark, first let me ask you, where in Maine is your brother?  Turns out there are several Mainers on this list, Gunny comes to mind.

Then to the K5. IIRC I bought a repo pilot from Doug Peck so I wouldn’t destroy the original.  I started out drilling the K5 coupler pocket out along with the cast fake coupler.  Then enlarged the opening by filing until I could insert a Kadee #5 draft gear box from the outside.  The lip on the box acts as a stop on the outside of the pilot.  Again, IIRC, I made a pad with JB Weld to seat the draft gear box on the inside.  I can’t tell now because our very own Jerry Poniatowski did a custom PRR repaint for me and he painted the underside of the pilot.  In hindsight, I don’t know why I just didn’t use a slab of styrene, I’m sure that would have worked just as well.  In the pix from the outside you can see the hole I drilled and tapped for a 4-40 screw to mount the coupler.

The underside pix shows the coupler mounted.  I did some filing of the box so the pilot truck wheels would clear while negotiating Flyer radii.  I believe I used a medium overset shank, # 42, in the #5 family but it cold be the #49 long, overset shank.  I did this in 2001, so please forgive my lack of recollection.

I did a similar conversion to the Flyonel Mikado.  It was a little more work, but not bad.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom

1. My brother lives in Alna. 30 degrees and currently snowing.  He has zero interest in model trains.

2. So you used an HO scale #5 on that pilot: I suppose an S scale Kadee would have been a bit too large.

3. That is a beautiful paint job; noticed it straight away.

Mark in (currently 43 degrees) Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Tom

1. My brother lives in Alna. 30 degrees and currently snowing.  He has zero interest in model trains.

2. So you used an HO scale #5 on that pilot: I suppose an Scale Kadee would have been a bit too large.

3. That is a beautiful paint job; noticed it straight away.

Mark in (currently 43 degrees) Oregon

Alna???  He’s our next-door neighbor!  Not to hi-jack this thread, my email address is in my profile.

Yes, I only use #5s and family.  I have many complaints against the, what is it, the 802?  The lack of close coupling is one, probably the cost is my biggest.  Also by comparison, it is complex to assemble.  The #5 family has various shank lengths and coupler placement, on the shank, options.  When it comes to Flyer conversions, I have used many of the variations.  As far as I know, there is only one shank with the 802s.

And speaking of cheap, check out my explorations for delayed magnetic uncoupling

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...magnets-and-kadee-5s

Tom Stoltz

in Dresden/Wiscasset, Maine

@Tom Stoltz posted:

Alna???  He’s our next-door neighbor!  Not to hi-jack this thread, my email address is in my profile.

Tom Stoltz

in Dresden/Wiscasset, Maine

Tom

Email sent...

Mark in Oregon

@Tom Stoltz posted:

Yes, I only use #5s and family.  I have many complaints against the, what is it, the 802?  The lack of close coupling is one, probably the cost is my biggest.  Also by comparison, it is complex to assemble.  The #5 family has various shank lengths and coupler placement, on the shank, options.  When it comes to Flyer conversions, I have used many of the variations.  As far as I know, there is only one shank with the 802s.

Tom Stoltz

in Dresden/Wiscasset, Maine

Your use of the #5 family certainly makes a lot of sense. Plus, there's not that much difference between the S coupler and the HO size.

Kadee was smart to offer early on such a wide range of couplers (for almost any application) in HO. I think that, as much as anything, had a lot to do with HO becoming "the" main scale. As 'bob2" would say..."opinion". 

Mark in (wet) Oregon

I've only used the Kadee HO couplers where I needed them a special application, like an offset shank on my SouthWind 2-8-0's:

and on any "vintage" cars I bought that already had them installed.  Otherwise, the HO couplers look too small to my eyes.

The distance between freight cars using 802's is about 3 scale feet, which is about what it is on the prototype, so I really don't see an issue there, but to each his own.

I can see where cost can be an issue, but as I usually buy a package of 802's when I buy a locomotive or car, that difference is blunted somewhat.  Plus every "scale" locomotive I've bought directly from AM, they've thrown in a package of 802's.  They even installed them on my last purchase: UP E8's...

The irony is I'll have to de-install them for body mounting and fill the pilot gaps with a modified insert, a project currently on a very crowded back burner.

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

I've only used the Kadee HO couplers where I needed them a special application, like an offset shank on my SouthWind 2-8-0's:

and on any "vintage" cars I bought that already had them installed.  Otherwise, the HO couplers look too small to my eyes.

The distance between freight cars using 802's is about 3 scale feet, which is about what it is on the prototype, so I really don't see an issue there, but to each his own.

I can see where cost can be an issue, but as I usually buy a package of 802's when I buy a locomotive or car, that difference is blunted somewhat.  Plus every "scale" locomotive I've bought directly from AM, they've thrown in a package of 802's.  They even installed them on my last purchase: UP E8's...

The irony is I'll have to de-install them for body mounting and fill the pilot gaps with a modified insert, a project currently on a very crowded back burner.

Rusty

I'd forgotten about that thread; wow, 7 years ago. 

In any case, whatever works is what's "best". Lucky that Kadees of almost any scale are compatible...

Mark in Oregon

Here is a project I designed for those HiRailers that want easy Kadee coupler conversions.

More details at :  http://www.tuveson.com/Coupler...kadee-converter.html

It's been 3.5 months, I've not been able to find a single piece of ATSF rolling stock - scale or hi-rail.  When they've popped up, they sell before I have a chance at them.  When they sit, it's cause someones asking twice market - and they will get it given the lack of availablity.  I guess that while there aren't enough bodies out there for the companies to justify building stuff, there are a ton of scavengers picking at the carcass.  Back to the drawing board for me.

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

It's been 3.5 months, I've not been able to find a single piece of ATSF rolling stock - scale or hi-rail.

American models:

40' Boxcar

46' Flat Car

Gondola

Offset Twin Hopper

Covered Hopper

Offset Triple Hopper

Bay Window, Wood Caboose (although not real accurate for AT&SF)

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

American models:

40' Boxcar

46' Flat Car

Gondola

Offset Twin Hopper

Covered Hopper

Offset Triple Hopper

Bay Window, Wood Caboose (although not real accurate for AT&SF)

Rusty

And 72' ATSF heavyweight passenger 5 car set is 9% off.  They also have the 4 car Santa Fe Budd sets.  Plenty of engines, also... 4-8-4, S-12, E-8, EP-7, GP-9, GE U25B.

Doug Peck as both AM and SHS Santa Fe flats cars.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

It's been 3.5 months, I've not been able to find a single piece of ATSF rolling stock - scale or hi-rail.  When they've popped up, they sell before I have a chance at them.  When they sit, it's cause someones asking twice market - and they will get it given the lack of availablity.  I guess that while there aren't enough bodies out there for the companies to justify building stuff, there are a ton of scavengers picking at the carcass.  Back to the drawing board for me.

Are you looking for a particular brand of product, era or car type? As Tom and Rusty note, plenty available direct from AM and Port Lines. Plus Pikesville Models, the other S-only online retailer, has quite a few.

Re: AT&SF stock. I've managed to find a few...

Before I begin the build of the Quality Craft caboose kit, I'm (attempting) to convert this:

...just more fun and games...

Mark in Oregon

@Chuck K posted:

Are you looking for a particular brand of product, era or car type? As Tom and Rusty note, plenty available direct from AM and Port Lines. Plus Pikesville Models, the other S-only online retailer, has quite a few.

Seems most of what I'd be into was manufactured by PRS or S-Helper with some exceptions. Given the lack of availability - I just don't think S is the right fit for me - despite me really liking the scale of it.  Anything I'd want is simply too long out of production.

jacobpaul81:

Sadly, I understand firsthand what you're up against.

I too, loved the size. I tried my best to be satisfied in S scale in view of the state of the scale. The SHS quality was excellent, AM's quality was good, as were many of the products I was able to find.

Unfortunately, the lack of availability (took me a couple years or so to find only one OMI S-2, I had originally allowed for more than one), the lack of variety (missing key engine types I was wanting to model) and the demand in the secondary market (prices) were what put me back into HO.

Though S is a wonderful size, I was not the type that could deal with the shortcomings in view of my layout and theme goals. Alas, after moving to HO I've never looked back and thoroughly enjoy what I'm doing in HO scale.

Andre

@laming posted:

jacobpaul81:

Sadly, I understand firsthand what you're up against.

I too, loved the size. I tried my best to be satisfied in S scale in view of the state of the scale. The SHS quality was excellent, AM's quality was good, as were many of the products I was able to find.

Unfortunately, the lack of availability (took me a couple years or so to find only one OMI S-2, I had originally allowed for more than one), the lack of variety (missing key engine types I was wanting to model) and the demand in the secondary market (prices) were what put me back into HO.

Though S is a wonderful size, I was not the type that could deal with the shortcomings in view of my layout and theme goals. Alas, after moving to HO I've never looked back and thoroughly enjoy what I'm doing in HO scale.

Andre

100% my feeling.  I'm sure it's made worse right now due to a lack of non-internet market - but it's just bad.  I'll probably go up rather than down a scale and go with O and go back to dealing with the extra rail.  There's at least 3 x 3rd Rail locos I could see running and the Pecos Hudson.  Boxcars and Reefers are cheap and plentiful.  Such is life. 

Hi Joe:

You are correct that if one models a concept with a small scope, S scale can fill the bill.

Yes, there was a lot of product made over the decades.

If one can accept the limitations imposed by the state of S scale: One's S scale boat can sail merrily off into the sunset.

The caveats for me were:

* Though a lot of product was made over the decades, the trick was trying to find it, obtaining it, and if you do obtain it, then often you had to get it up to one's personal goals in looks and performance. Those aren't easy tasks for many modelers. The only products that performed in a manner I was used to (HO Kato-type performance) were the engine products of SHS. All the others had to be fiddled with and often re-powered, or worse.

* Plus, no matter how you slice it, the variety just isn't there for diesel-freaks like myself that like a wide spectrum of engine makes, models, variations, etc. The main downfall point for me was switcher selection. (At the time I was going to attempt an urban KC industrial switching district.) Aside from white metal kits for an EMD and an Alco S, or a limited run resin flat-kit for an FM, your only two options in easily worked plastic were SHS EMD's and AM's Baldwin S-12. Unfortunately, the AM S-12 has road trucks under it which really needs to be replaced with the correct type trucks for the engine to ever truly look like it should. Guess what trucks it needs? Yup, SHS trucks that SHS used under their EMD switchers. Those are long gone as single purchases, so now the only way would be purchase an SHS EMD and take the trucks off it. When finished adapting the trucks to the AM frame, you finally have a Baldwin S-12 that has accurate trucks... and a high $$ SHS EMD that doesn't.

Then there's the ubiquitous GP7 in S scale: None. You have to purchase the AM GP9, then find/purchase the GP7 long hood kit and bash/modify to get a GP7. The railroads I was trying to model had scads of GP7's... but only a few GP9's.

I truly gave it the old "Gung-ho!" attempt to model in S:

Now, IF I had been able to accept the following:

* Go with high rail wheels.

* Go with a track system available for same.

* Accept what could be found and obtained, and accept that additions to the S scale offerings were going to be a long time coming, or never.

...then maybe it could have turned out different.

However, I couldn't accept the above then, and doubt that I could now. I still seem to enjoy small profile rail and product variety way too much. (Besides, IF I was going to up-size, it would be because of dexterity and eyesight issues, and then it would be traditional 3-rail, with a heavy Lionel PW presence, and enjoy model trains until I can't.)

Thus I wasn't able to "do it my way" in S, so I made like a rat and abandoned ship.

Andre "Fleeing Rat" Ming

@laming posted:

Thus I wasn't able to "do it my way" in S, so I made like a rat and abandoned ship.

Andre "Fleeing Rat" Ming

Don't be so hard on yourself, Andre.  Your feelings about S are nothing I haven't heard in some form or another over the past 30 some-odd years.  With what the likes of Athearn, Scale Trains, Rapido, Walthers and others are putting out in HO, it's a siren song that is almost impossible to resist.  In fact, some of Rapido's announcements have made me weak in the knees.

I was fortunate by getting into S back in 1985 as the scale grew in the same direction I was interested in.  That doesn't mean I don't recognize it's shortcomings.  I was always uncomfortable telling folks when displaying with my modular group at train shows that you really can't find this stuff in most hobby shops (even though the local Des Plaines Hobbies is pretty well stocked) and they would either have to special order or scour the internet for S.

It takes a certain fortitude to be in S, even during the "glory years" of mid-1990's-early 2000's.

Rusty

I could live with the limited motive power options - which is why I considered testing the S waters  - but I can't live with the inability to locate even one piece of period rolling stock for my road - which isn't exactly some off-the-beaten path railroad.  It was only the largest railroad in the US.   Not that the climate in O is any better - the Atlas / MTH announcement does not appear to include steam era equipment.  At least in O, there's plenty of Atlas / Weaver floating around to purchase.  HO would certainly be the better long term choice - but it lacks heft.   

Every scale has it's problems.

From afar, I might observe that with MTH relinquishing its death grip on the "S" line products, the patient's heart monitor is now showing more than a flat line.  You've got a chance.

George

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

HO would certainly be the better long term choice - but it lacks heft.   

Every scale has it's problems.

Heft is relative.

Brendan

@Brendan posted:

Heft is relative.

Brendan

Eye of the beholder.   

Please forgive me, but I continue to read this thread with some bemusement and amusement. Those of us who collect, repair, operate and enjoy Gilbert Flyer just roll right along. There is something to be said for being in the hobby just for the fun of it. There are large quantities of vintage Gilbert and Lionel production 'out there' at very affordable prices as well as the new Legacy AF, AM, and SHS-derived trains which are Gilbert-compatible. Gilbert (and the earlier Lionel production) AF trains have a rich history, undeniable charm, and the big plus of having been made in the good ol' USA. And, there is nothing about the AF universe that prevents one from building beautiful realistic scenery, usually with modern hi-rail track. On the other hand, one can build a strictly authentic Gilbert-themed layout by indulging in historically correct vintage 'rivet counting' of another kind.

Portlines Hobbies is backed up in faithfully fulfilling orders for Flyer parts, so there must be a lot of folks still repairing and operating Flyer. My current Flyer project is bringing back a friend's boyhood 322 to service.

So, heck, yes. S is definitely an option. It depends in which church pew one sits.

Respectfully,

Bob

@Bob Bubeck posted:

Please forgive me, but I continue to read this thread with some bemusement and amusement. Those of us who collect, repair, operate and enjoy Gilbert Flyer just roll right along. There is something to be said for being in the hobby just for the fun of it. There are large quantities of vintage Gilbert and Lionel production 'out there' at very affordable prices as well as the new Legacy AF, AM, and SHS-derived trains which are Gilbert-compatible. Gilbert (and the earlier Lionel production) AF trains have a rich history, undeniable charm, and the big plus of having been made in the good ol' USA. And, there is nothing about the AF universe that prevents one from building beautiful realistic scenery, usually with modern hi-rail track. On the other hand, one can build a strictly authentic Gilbert-themed layout by indulging in historically correct vintage 'rivet counting' of another kind.

Portlines Hobbies is backed up in faithfully fulfilling orders for Flyer parts, so there must be a lot of folks still repairing and operating Flyer. My current Flyer project is bringing back a friend's boyhood 322 to service.

So, heck, yes. S is definitely an option. It depends in which church pew one sits.

Respectfully,

Bob

Pretty much.  The thread title should have been is "s scale" still an option. 

If ya want Flyer, yer golden. Not my thing - at all.  And if it were, O-27 is readily available. 

@Bob Bubeck posted:

Please forgive me, but I continue to read this thread with some bemusement and amusement. Those of us who collect, repair, operate and enjoy Gilbert Flyer just roll right along. There is something to be said for being in the hobby just for the fun of it. There are large quantities of vintage Gilbert and Lionel production 'out there' at very affordable prices as well as the new Legacy AF, AM, and SHS-derived trains which are Gilbert-compatible. Gilbert (and the earlier Lionel production) AF trains have a rich history, undeniable charm, and the big plus of having been made in the good ol' USA. And, there is nothing about the AF universe that prevents one from building beautiful realistic scenery, usually with modern hi-rail track. On the other hand, one can build a strictly authentic Gilbert-themed layout by indulging in historically correct vintage 'rivet counting' of another kind.

Portlines Hobbies is backed up in faithfully fulfilling orders for Flyer parts, so there must be a lot of folks still repairing and operating Flyer. My current Flyer project is bringing back a friend's boyhood 322 to service.

So, heck, yes. S is definitely an option. It depends in which church pew one sits.

Respectfully,

Bob

Well said Bob!

Time to put this topic to bed.

Gunny

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

Pretty much.  The thread title should have been is "s scale" still an option.

If ya want Flyer, yer golden. Not my thing - at all.  And if it were, O-27 is readily available.

Well, "S scale" is/was very much understood as the root of the question. However, the desires voiced here (and everyone is entitled to their desires) are often very specific and narrowly focused. The historic route for modelers so inclined is to become modeling craftspersons and build to their specific needs motive power, rolling stock, and structures. I know a number of 2-rail O scalers who model every required piece to very accurately represent a defined railroad of an historic time and place. If a manufacturer makes something that 'fits', maybe with a bit of modification, fine. But, they do not have an expectation that a manufacturer will cater to their desires upfront.

A difficulty with this thread is that someone 'dropping in' might get the impression that S gauge is hopeless. Well, it is not for the majority who may be more flexible in their desires. OK?

Respectfully,

Bob

PS: There is a big difference between Gilbert Flyer, its descendants (e.g., AM) and (gasp!) O-27. Gilbert made that point in the catalogs from the get go.

@Bob Bubeck posted:

Well, "S scale" is/was very much understood as the root of the question. However, the desires voiced here (and everyone is entitled to their desires) are often very specific and narrowly focused. The historic route for modelers so inclined is to become modeling craftspersons and build to their specific needs motive power, rolling stock, and structures. I know a number of 2-rail O scalers who model every required piece to very accurately represent a defined railroad of an historic time and place. If a manufacturer makes something that 'fits', maybe with a bit of modification, fine. But, they do not have an expectation that a manufacturer will cater to their desires upfront.

A difficulty with this thread is that someone 'dropping in' might get the impression that S gauge is hopeless. Well, it is not for the majority who may be more flexible in their desires. OK?

Respectfully,

Bob

PS: There is a big difference between Gilbert Flyer, its descendants (e.g., AM) and (gasp!) O-27. Gilbert made that point in the catalogs from the get go.

Problem solved.

@Bob Bubeck posted:

A difficulty with this thread is that someone 'dropping in' might get the impression that S gauge is hopeless. Well, it is not for the majority who may be more flexible in their desires. OK?

Respectfully,

Bob

PS: There is a big difference between Gilbert Flyer, its descendants (e.g., AM) and (gasp!) O-27. Gilbert made that point in the catalogs from the get go.

The fact that we can openly discuss S, warts and all, indicates to me that S isn't hopeless.

Difficult yes, but not hopeless.

Complaints about S are just as valid as the reasons to be in S.

It's much better than elsewhere that when such subjects are brought up, the response is usually "S is the builders scale, you always can build it," or "XYZ Company made that 20 years ago, we don't need another one."  Both are unhelpful dead-ender responses IMHO.

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

It's much better than elsewhere that when such subjects are brought up, the response is usually "S is the builders scale, you always can build it," or "XYZ Company made that 20 years ago, we don't need another one."  Both are unhelpful dead-ender responses IMHO.

As a reader of and sometimes contributor to the forum to which you are referring, I got a chuckle from this Rusty.  If that forum had been my only exposure to S enthusiasts 5 years ago, I would have refrained from social participation in the hobby so as to avoid being talked down to.

I've already put in my 2 cents worth... but here is 2 more. 🙂

I actually find the challenge of looking for S scale/ gauge stuff as being part of the allure; there's millions of HO items "out there", and tons of O ( both of which I like, by the way). The thrill of the hunt for S is, again, part of the attraction for me. I get it that that's not for everyone, but it works in my case. 😁

Mark in Oregon

Well I finally won an auction for an S-helper car.  Actually got a handful - but just the one Santa Fe.  This made me chuckle - S scale 40' Reefer in front of of O scale 50' boxcar.   Santa Fe logo is the exact same size. 

graphic. 

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

Well I finally won an auction for an S-helper car.  Actually got a handful - but just the one Santa Fe.  This made me chuckle - S scale 40' Reefer in front of of O scale 50' boxcar.   Santa Fe logo is the exact same size.

You can guarantee that the S Helper graphics are as close to prototypes as they could get in size, shape, color, and position.

Scale trains acquired the MTH (who acquired SHS) S-line this year. There is a future. Mark

@barrister.2u posted:

Scale trains acquired the MTH (who acquired SHS) S-line this year. There is a future. Mark

Unfortunately, we're still probably over a year away before Scale Trains releases their first S Scale endeavor.

Rusty

@Chuck K posted:

You can guarantee that the S Helper graphics are as close to prototypes as they could get in size, shape, color, and position.

I was able to grab a couple of the MKT Single-Sheathed Boxcars for $40 per car.  Graphics and Details are top notch right down to the flat paint. 

I've been trying to obtain the ATSF single-sheathed and the War Bonds rebuilt from S-helper but I keep getting beat out on auctions. 

@Rusty Traque posted:

American Models 2900 class 4-8-4's (Left, dolled up a little.  Right, straight from the box.  (Still available with scale wheels.)

I was finally able to snag a Scale DC 2900 class 4-8-4 "Heavy Mountain".  I'm expecting it to show up in the mail today.  I note that these (Rusty's) are numbered 2922 and 2920 - but mine is 2923. The image on AM's website is 2922.  Is this 2923 an older run?



I'd been teetering back and forth on O - S for a while. It's been difficult to find one of these for a price I could bare - but one finally came through. 

Isn't a Mountain a 4-8-2?

Ed

Yes, and a 4-8-4 is known as a "Northern."

Or a "Pocono" or a "Niagara" or...🙂

Mark in Oregon 🎄

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

I was finally able to snag a Scale DC 2900 class 4-8-4 "Heavy Mountain".  I'm expecting it to show up in the mail today.  I note that these (Rusty's) are numbered 2922 and 2920 - but mine is 2923. The image on AM's website is 2922.  Is this 2923 an older run?



I'd been teetering back and forth on O - S for a while. It's been difficult to find one of these for a price I could bare - but one finally came through.

If your model has white lettering and an incandescent bulb, it's from the first run of Northerns.  The later run had grayish lettering to simulate the imitation aluminum lettering Santa Fe used.  Also the headlight is an LED on the later run.  Below is are images of a second run Northern.

As I recall, AM did two numbers in each run of the Santa Fe Northerns.  The LED looks orange when off, but when lit it's very white.

@PRR1950 posted:

Yes, and a 4-8-4 is known as a "Northern."

In Santa Fe parlance, they were initially referred to as "Heavy Mountains."  Later they simply used their "class" (first in the series) numbers on all their steam locomotives: i.e. 3751 class, 2900 class, etc.

The UP referred to Northerns as 800's.  N&W, J's.

Plus, that which we call a Northern was also known as: Big Apple(CofG,) Dixie(NC&StL,) Empire Builder(GN,) General(RF&P,) Greenbrier(C&O,) Golden State(SP; later General Service,) Governor(RF&P again,) Niagara(NYC,) Niagra(NdeM,) Pocono(DL&W,) Potomac(WM,) Wyoming(LV.)

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

If your model has white lettering and an incandescent bulb, it's from the first run of Northerns.  The later run had grayish lettering to simulate the imitation aluminum lettering Santa Fe used.  Also the headlight is an LED on the later run.  Below is are images of a second run Northern.

As I recall, AM did two numbers in each run of the Santa Fe Northerns.  The LED looks orange when off, but when lit it's very white.

In Santa Fe parlance, they were initially referred to as "Heavy Mountains."  Later they simply used their "class" (first in the series) numbers on all their steam locomotives: i.e. 3751 class, 2900 class, etc.

The UP referred to Northerns as 800's.  N&W, J's.

Plus, that which we call a Northern was also known as: Big Apple(CofG,) Dixie(NC&StL,) Empire Builder(GN,) General(RF&P,) Greenbrier(C&O,) Golden State(SP; later General Service,) Governor(RF&P again,) Niagara(NYC,) Niagra(NdeM,) Pocono(DL&W,) Potomac(WM,) Wyoming(LV.)

Rusty

Ok - this one looks white - so it's probably first run.  Thanks Rusty!

... and Rusty is 100% Correct.  ATSF did not own any "Northerns".   I've posted on this before - they were known by the road as "Heavy Mountains", "New Mountains", or in early schematics - "Mountain 4-wheel trailer".  They were never referred to as a "Northern" and there is zero documentation of that term from the road.  When 3751 was approved for the National Registry - it was as the oldest "4-8-4", not as the oldest "Northern". The application specifically refers to the locomotive as a "Heavy Mountain."  This is also why the ATSF numbered it 3751 - a continuation of the previous 3700 class Mountains.

White letters, White Light.  So first run.  Very hefty.  First S scale locomotive I've gotten to see. 

@Strummer posted:

Or a "Pocono" or a "Niagara" or...🙂

Mark in Oregon 🎄

Model railroading is rife with inaccurate terminology. Note that the Eastern Roads where the toy manufacturers were / are located all use correct terms for their regional locomotives - Mohawk, Niagra, Greenbrier, etc.

ATSF was a mostly southwestern and western road - and they were big on their southwestern brand.  Terms like Northern, Hudson, or Berkshire were foreign to them and not "on brand".   Terms like Texas, Prairie, Pacific, and Mountain were totally acceptable.  The 4-8-4s and 4-6-4s were refered to as Heavy Mountains and Heavy Pacifics by the road - though they could have just as easily come up with new names - like Southwesterns and Kansans.

It's taken long enough, but I finally was able to pick up some ATSF S-Helper Boxcars off the used market - along with an American Models car.

In order to be in S, you must be super Stubborn.

Nice cars.

Now that it appears S scale is still an option, Here are a couple more thoughts for the OP:

eBay has a few ATSF rolling stock options available, 1 example : https://www.ebay.com/itm/29429...1:g:1kYAAOSw3f1g6LqW

American models also has the Baldwin S12 in ATSF.   American Models has other locomotives that are undercoated, so one can custom paint in ATSF road name.  

And as someone already pointed out Dave Blume, Pikesville models, has a great inventory of new and used S scale:  https://www.americanflyertrain...w_item?item_id=10110

"S" is for Superior,

Aflyer

My layout is set in Western PA but there is interchange traffic. Here are pictures of a few Santa Fe items passing through.

Here are a couple more Santa Fe items. Note the cab number of this U36 is different than the one posted above. REA cars are appropriate on any line. These are all AF by Lionel.

And one of my old favorites from 1951.

@AmFlyer posted:

My layout is set in Western PA but there is interchange traffic. Here are pictures of a few Santa Fe items passing through.

Tom

Nice Y3, I have one also.  It is probably the best locomotive that Flyonel has ever produced.  I have run mine at Train shows ever since I got it, and I bet it has 800 hours on it.

Aflyer

I've been buying, flipping, and stockpiling for over a year now - all rolling stock.  I bought an AM 2923 Scale 4-8-4 but the same model just came available in AC Hi-Rail.  Trying to decide if I should get the Hi-Rail version.  I figure what's available for ATSF steam for me is basically the 4-8-4, 2-8-0, and the rare and scale only river raisin early berk. There's also the rare Pennsylvania L1.   If I want a ATSF Mikado, I'd have to bash an AM flyer light with Hi-Rail wheels. Thoughts?  Do you go scale wheels or stick with Hi-Rail everything and plan the layout to accommodate scale equipment?

I had my layout built to allow operating of either scale or high rail equipment. The MTH .138 tall rail is the smallest that will run high rail. All turnouts are #5, #6 or #8 handlaid and tested with both kinds of wheels.

I made three other somewhat limiting decisions. These were #1, oversize couplers rather than Kadees, #2, Legacy rather than DCC, and #3, a 30” minimum radius rather than 36” to 40” minimum.

I have some AM scale wheel engines and passenger cars with scale wheels and they run fine. I never tried a RR Berkshire, I doubt it will navigate the 30” radius curves.

@AmFlyer posted:

I have some AM scale wheel engines and passenger cars with scale wheels and they run fine. I never tried a RR Berkshire, I doubt it will navigate the 30” radius curves.

The lowest I could get River Raisin Berkshires to run on was 33" radius.

Rusty

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

bought an AM 2923 Scale 4-8-4 but the same model just came available in AC Hi-Rail.  Trying to decide if I should get the Hi-Rail version.

If I want a ATSF Mikado, I'd have to bash an AM flyer light with Hi-Rail wheels.

Do you go scale wheels or stick with Hi-Rail everything and plan the layout to accommodate scale equipment?

Stick with the scale wheel version you have. AM locos with scale wheels do great on code 100 and code 138 track.

Regarding the Mikado, you can get the Flyonel TMCC Mikado rather than modify an AM light Pacific. The Flyonel Mikados are beautiful models, but I can't comment on how accurate they are for ATSF's stable.

I use code 138 rail and run both high rail and scale wheels. I'd be happy to have code 100 rail and run all scale wheels, BUT that would mean no Flyonel Legacy steamers such as the Challenger, Y-3, or Berkshire, all 3 of which I love.  It would also mean never running any of my vintage Gilbert stuff which I do enjoy once in a while although I am primarily a fan of scale modelling.  Of course the key is what do you plan to use for turnouts.  Unless you plan to build your own, turnouts for 138 are very limited (mostly unrealistic #5's) whereas code 100 has lots of great choices for many radii.

@Chuck K posted:

Regarding the Mikado, you can get the Flyonel TMCC Mikado rather than modify an AM light Pacific. The Flyonel Mikados are beautiful models, but I can't comment on how accurate they are for ATSF's stable.

It's a USRA light which is a good base model for ATSFs 3129 class which proceeded the USRA lights.  Later ATSF Mikes are closer akin to USRA heavies but with drivers closer to lights - so chassis could be used for bash.  Either way, the cab and boiler needs a lot of work. 

@Chuck K posted:

Stick with the scale wheel version you have. AM locos with scale wheels do great on code 100 and code 138 track.

I stuck with scale wheeled version.  I'll stick it out and hope down the line Scale Trains re-releases the SHS 2-8-0.  That chassis would be better for crafting scale ATSF Mikes. 

As for a frustration of S scale...

I hate that everything has to be done online.  You can't trust anyone - and unless they provide detailed photos, don't buy it!  Case in point: I got in 6 cars the other day for what I thought was a good deal - no notes about issues - pics looked fine (but were taken inside boxes).  2 cars arrived with no trucks and one came with no lower door frame.  2 had ho size kadee couplers (I'm gonna use 802s).  The 2 cars with missing trucks were the only reason I bought the lot - so I'm gonna swap with the ho coupler cars and then try and sell the 2 cars without trucks - 1 without a door frame.  My guess is no one will buy that.

@Rusty Traque posted:

The lowest I could get River Raisin Berkshires to run on was 33" radius.

Rusty

I'm thinking 40" radius for the future layout... but I'm in standstill as my lovely wife is contemplating yet another move. Ugh.  I've flipped 4 houses in 10 years.  I've been remodeling this one for the last 3.  Was hoping I was going to get back to work on a railroad soon - but it might have to wait another year.  I was already contemplating doing it as modular given our propensity for moving.

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

I stuck with scale wheeled version.  I'll stick it out and hope down the line Scale Trains re-releases the SHS 2-8-0.  That chassis would be better for crafting scale ATSF Mikes.

As for a frustration of S scale...

.  2 had ho size kadee couplers (I'm gonna use 802s). 

A fair number of S gaugers use Kadee #5s.  They have much closer coupling... some even think they look closer to S scale in size.  And they don't have that slack action, easier to put together, and the new whisker versions are even better.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

@Tom Stoltz posted:

A fair number of S gaugers use Kadee #5s.  They have much closer coupling... some even think they look closer to S scale in size.  And they don't have that slack action, easier to put together, and the new whisker versions are even better.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I've had a few cars with both, I definitely prefer the appearance of the 802 / 808.  I think the #5 is  too small.  But I do understand why folks use them - way cheaper!

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

I'm thinking 40" radius for the future layout... but I'm in standstill as my lovely wife is contemplating yet another move. Ugh.  I've flipped 4 houses in 10 years.  I've been remodeling this one for the last 3.  Was hoping I was going to get back to work on a railroad soon - but it might have to wait another year.  I was already contemplating doing it as modular given our propensity for moving.

Go with modular/sectional.  I did that with my layout and it took the move perfectly.  You won't regret it.  I've seen too many layouts destroyed by moves.

@Tom Stoltz posted:

A fair number of S gaugers use Kadee #5s.  They have much closer coupling... some even think they look closer to S scale in size.  And they don't have that slack action, easier to put together, and the new whisker versions are even better.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I've pretty much minimized the slack action of the 802's by doubling the spring in the draft gear box.   There's enough extras in the package and half the time there's some doubled up anyway.

Rusty

That's a good idea, Rusty...👍

Mark in Oregon

I do the same thing with Kadee 802/805 springs. There is still some slack action when starting up from a full stop that looks fairly realistic, but the conductor and brakeman in the caboose no longer get headaches and complain about being jerked back and forth in the caboose if the train motion is not smooth. The double-spring tightens knuckle in the draft gear box and better dampens small, sudden changes in speed.  I use two of the larger springs together. The smaller springs are meant to force the knuckle to close.

I got 2 more cars in today's mail... #5s.  Of course. 

@poniaj posted:

Go with modular/sectional.  I did that with my layout and it took the move perfectly.  You won't regret it.  I've seen too many layouts destroyed by moves.

I'm 100% on board.  I've been exploring construction styles to work out what will be best. I want to keep it super light.  I'm leaning towards doing a reverse loop - to - reverse loop layout (instead of a circle) to get the most length with a single track main and keeping the modules very narrow - like 18-20" wide. 

My layout was built in modules, however it is anything but light.

@poniaj posted:

Go with modular/sectional.  I did that with my layout and it took the move perfectly.  You won't regret it.  I've seen too many layouts destroyed by moves.

Like mine...

Not that it would have mattered as the new space is smaller than the old one.

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

Like mine...

Not that it would have mattered as the new space is smaller than the old one.

Rusty

Been there!  My O gauge layout was a ridiculous L-girder monster. By the time I had it running a train, I had to tear it out. Never again.

I'm exploring PVC screw in legs connected to a thin plywood frame with foam top as a possibility.

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

Been there!  My O gauge layout was a ridiculous L-girder monster. By the time I had it running a train, I had to tear it out. Never again.

I'm exploring PVC screw in legs connected to a thin plywood frame with foam top as a possibility.

Our club display layout (Southeastern Michigan S Gaugers) was made with thin foam topping framework made from ripped plywood.  The sections are as light as can be made and still withstand constant set up and tear down.  We used PVC legs that simply slide into pockets and have carriage bolts at the bottom for leveling purposes.  My home layout is similarly done.  I used 2x2 legs with an occasional diagonal brace for stability.

The first shot is of my layout's construction and the other two are of its tear-down for the move.  Yeah, I went with a "race track" type layout simply because in addition to basic operations, I like to see trains run.  Very zen.   BTW, my home layout was made with salvaged bleacher wood from the local high school.

In any event, please keep us all informed as to any progress!

I produce a couple of S Scale shadowboxes.

https://www.toddarchitecturalm...om/s-scale-stuctures