Is semi-scale dead?

I don't really have enough room to build a pike wherein long freights with

scale equipment or 21-inch passenger cars would "look good" to me, so I'm

very happy with the semi stuff and the 15-inchers. 

 

     Hoppy

I am happy that hoppy is happy.

Well, Railking seems to be doing well and it is definitely semi-scale.  Some of the Imperial models are very appealing locos.  I've bought several and like them. The new Lionel Lionchief Plus locos are not scale - not sure you'd call them semi-scale but whatever they are they are definitely "alive."

 

My tastes have evolved to where I run almost entirely scale locos, but there are a few Imperial models I run too.  

Problem is that there is no finite definition of "semi-scale".  Scale refers to size or dimensions, being, in "0" gauge; 1/48" = 1 ft.  But there are other definitions of "scale" including fidelity to prototype, correct colors, correct model representation,  correct era being represented, anything that adheres to "fine scale" modeling.

 

But semi-scale not only refers to size but also correct or incorrect color,  correct or incorrect details, mixing of time line eras, and a lot of other things that are inaccurate.  Most times semi-scale engines are smaller than scale models, but there are times when the models were actually larger than they should be.  Case in point, the Lionel 44 ton switcher, the MTH NW switcher, both companies representations of 19th Century steam engines, etc.

 

My personal preference is for my trains to be scale in size, correct to prototype colors and accurate for the railroad they are representing.  Apparently I'm in the minority because I visit many layouts where accuracy is not even considered when choosing trains, time eras, relative sizes, etc.  So, I guess that we should respect the concept of "to each his own" and let your friends run whatever they so desire.

 

Paul Fischer

O course, it all depends on which scale one is talking about.

 

After all, this:

 

Cleans up rather nicely into a 3/16" S Scale boxcar:

 

Admittedly, some of the detail is still a little crude, (or, lower resolution in 21st century parlance...) but it does pass the 5' rule.

 

Rusty

 

As long as the trains run on 5' gauge three rail track how can they be 1/48 scale models of North American standard gauge (4'-8.5") trains? That sounds like semi-scale to me.   

The discussion, other than what to call non-scale trains, is interesting to me.

 

It seems to me, if I was going to start an O-gauge cottage business, I would want to produce scale items to stay in business. Semi-scale/traditional seems to be a losing proposition.

A very poignant observation. I do, however subscribe to scale length rolling stock. Semi-scale likely isn't "dead";  just don't expect me to be buying any of it.

 

Gilly

But until 1886, many American railroads used the 5' gauge. 

I agree completely with your last statement.  But I  never took "semi-scale" to mean all incorrect color or details.  Color and details have nothing to do with scale so I always thought they were merely aspects of how good a model the loco or car was.  For example, RK Imperial locos are rendered fairly well as to color and have lots of details, but they are still semi-scale.

 

To me "semi-scale" means a loco in which scale was compressed and other measures taken to make it fit and run on tight-radius track.  What I expect is that it will be smaller than scale in most cases (the notorious overly-large 44 ton switcher being among the rare exceptions) particularly as to length, and that the "scale" in all three dimensions will not be the same, some semi-scale locos are reduced in length but not as much in width or height, etc.

My layout space is limited to 4x10, so the curves are O-31 and O-42.  Let's face it, scale equipment looks stupid on those kinds of diameters.  Extruded aluminum cars look silly too, even though they were engineered to run on those curves.  The good news is, since my layout is a time machine, I'm happy and satisfied to run traditional size stuff.

 

Pete

Agree. IF you want pure scale, then O gauge will not do it. BUT, we ALL draw the "scale line" in different spot on the sand hence I am very happy with most of the premier/Lionel/Atlas/SS O scale but I also like the Imperial/rail king stuff too.

 

I feel very lucky to have all these options, and if a loco looks good to "me", I will buy it and I don't give a darn if it is scale or not!

 

We should also be happy we can buy what is offered in the USA for a lot less then other countries..

The slight discrepancy in the scale of the track gauge is irrelevant to me since all track on my layout is the same gauge and size.  

 

I realize there are people who care about the scale itself - its got to be 1:48 or nothing, and that is fine, but I only care that all my locos are the same scale: it could be 1:43.5 for all I care, as long as all are the same. Beyond the fact that having a uniform scale allows me to mix and match as I want, display and comparison is a b ig part of what I bought them for.  For example, I like to have models of the T-1 and S-2 side by side and see that they were obviously derived from the same frame, cab, etc., and be able to compare them to their shorter but in some ways brawnier sibling the CC2 and study the differences without having to factor in a difference in scales, and be able to compare Challenger, Big Boy, and Allegheny and EM-1, etc, also.  

My two cents is I hope they never discontinue semi scale as I run anything that will negotiate O-42 or less and looks good rounding the curve (no severe overhangs, in other words) and fits through underpasses and  tunnel portals.  I do have some "true" scale which are relatively huge next to my other cars.  These I bought because they looked "neat" or fit the modeling era, but they generally sit in yards or packed away.

 

Being a runner I don't get into rivet counting. No gettting out my micrometer and calulator and dimensioned drawings checking every detail.  If it looks good, negotiages curves realistically, then its a runner.

 

But again my two cent contribution to this thread.

Let me try to settle the debate. I will venture to say that the definition of "semi-scale" should be "almost scale"  In other words a model that is close but not made to scale proportions. For instance the Lionel F3 engine.

 

And you hae the case of American flyer Pre-War, and metal Marx Post-War.  S cale on 3 rail O track.  Scale and "semi-scale" at the same time.

And some F3 locomotives are 'scale' too. 

 

I prefer model trains that are as close to scale as possible. However, when it comes to O scale trains, I feel that the MTH RailKing line gives the best value by far. 3 rail has too many compromises to be considered anything other than a "toy" to me. That's not meant to be derogatory, it just is what it is. After years of purchasing and running the "scale" equipment, I've come to realize that the 3 rail shortcomings still bother me. So if I'm going to run a "toy" train, why pay 3x the amount for just a little more scale fidelity? For right around $400 I can buy an MTH Imperial steam engine that has the same sound/control/smoke of the "Scale" versions, much of the detail, and 95% of the size and heft. It seems like a better value to me.

 

The "Scale" trains still run on wide gauge 3 rail track with oversized flanges and couplers. Thus, I can't take them serious as true scale models. Also, unless you have a very large space for wide curves they just look silly to me going around O-72 anyway.

 

I guess I've just come to the point where I try to use each scale for it's major benefits. 3R O offers the ability to have large trains in tight space. That was the genesis of the scale. To make big "scale" models look right I might as well be modeling in 2R anyway. So for me, I hope "semi-scale" never goes away because that is how I choose to get my toy train fix. I'll get my scale fix elsewhere where it makes more sense.

Good grief.  Just tried to post about how nicely done that General Mills to S Scale M&W boxcar was done.  Managed to re-post the same thing five times in all kind of screwy ways.  Sorry.

 

I see both sides of the fence are saying they are winning while it really does not matter.

I have a selection of engines and only one is Scale, I just got it last month, used.

I have numerous Imperial RailKing engines as they look very good and are priced within my range. Are they Scale? No. Do I care a lot? No.

Am I happy to have a Scale Big Boy? Sure, it has fantastic detail.

 

However, I only have a couple scale freight cars and I got those because they looked good on the shelf but they don'y really fit in my trains so I will be selling them off one day.

 

It's all in what you like and can afford.

 

I'd say both sides of the fence are getting plenty of business these days.

Let my Webster's New World Dictionary settle the debate.  The definition of "semi-" is "1 half, 2 partly, not fully."  So maybe with regard to our trains what it really means is "somewhat."

 

Pete

 

OK, I have to say I am having a really hard time wrapping my fat head around that one. Details don't matter for an item to be scale or not, just so it's the right proportions?

As long as the cars in the train appear to be the same scale I'm happy. As far as true "o scale" I'm pretty sure I would be a less happy person. If the engines and cars of the train are scale then overtight curves and having to model scale mile by scale mile would drive me to tears of boredom. If these are overlooked how can it be a scale layout.

If you watch the trains running at eye level, use Kadee instead of the 3-rail lobster claw couplers, using the more realistic looking kind like Atlas O, ScaleTrax, GarGraves, Ross, etc.) then the fact that the track has 3 rails is far less obvious.  I have some pictures I can post of some of my weathered, scale equipment on my Atlas O layout and I'd say you'd be hard pressed to tell it was a 3-rail layout.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and does it matter if they are scale or semi-scale? 

Exactly my thoughts. 99.9 out of 100 people that see my layout couldn't tell me what the difference is between scale, semi-scale, or traditional; they just see model/toy trains. They also wouldn't really notice a difference between a $900 loco and a $200 one. The day someone actually says to me, "Hmmm, that Sante Fe RS-3 seems to be a smaller scale than that 44-ton switcher" is the first day I kick somebody out of my house.

I have to agree, this discussion is getting lost in semantics. Hopefully, I can add some clarity. If a boxcar, for example, is an exact 1/48 scale reproduction of the prototype, then it would have every single detail proportionally reduced. That would include couplers, wheel flanges, etc. In 2 rail O scale, we have Proto 48, where everything is modeled accurately including the track gauge of 4' 8-1/2". Typical 2 rail O scale uses 5' as the track gauge but otherwise the models are 1/48 scale in every other respect. The difference in the  gauge is a scale 3-1/2" which is less than 5/64ths of an inch. This is negligible unless you're a purist.

 

Coupled with this is selective compression. This is more commonly used when modeling structures. For example, the prototype may have 3 windows on each side of a doorway. However, I can selectively compress the building by having only 2 windows on each side of the doorway. It's still built using 1/48 scale dimensions except that it is not an exact scale duplicate of the prototype. Yet, it's still a 1/48" scale structure.

 

The bottom line is-- don't get all hung up on scale. Even the largest model railroads are not scale in actual modeled miles. Who has the room to reproduce an actual city block let alone a city? At scale heights, most trees would dwarf your structures.  And when was the last time you reproduced a mountain in 1/48 scale?

 

Remember we're creating an illusion, not reproducing reality.

 

 

 

 

Good job on that conversion.

But what if you have a boxcar or locomotive that is the proper length in S scale but not in height or width?  You can have something that's compressed in either all or certain dimensions that doesn't fit into any of the established scales in model railroading.

Dennis:  you bring up some interesting points.  Yes, the track gauge is a mere scale 3 1/2" too wide but the real purist objects to that.  I think that the error occurred when 1 1/4" was determined to be the track spacing for "0" gauge.  At that time, my theory is that the measurement was selected as center of the rail to the center of the other rail.  This would account for that minor difference and would have given us a measurement of 1-1/8" between the rails, closer to that scale 4' -8 1/2" objective.

 

As scale model railroading was being developed, another alternative to making the relationship of train size and track gauge more accurate was offered.  Some of the guys determined that if a scale of 17/64" = 1' were used, the relationship would be more correct.  So, for a while, some 17/64" trains were built, including Lionel's own first attempt at scale model railroading, the Union Pacific M10,000, their #752(E), 753 and 754.  If you compare the original Lionel version to, say a modern day MTH Premier model of the M10,000 you will note that the Lionel train is considerably larger than the correct 1/4" scale model is.  Thank God that cooler heads prevailed over the next few years because Lionel's Hiawatha (engine and tender only), their 700E Hudson and the 701 scale switcher were all built to 1/4"= 1', or we'd have some really oversize but scale locos to look back upon.

 

Some of the traction guys, streetcars and interurbans, did stay with the 17/64 scale for quite a while.  I recently bought a Japanese built model of the Illinois Terminal streamliners, done in hand crafted brass probably around 1950 and it is in that 17/64" scale.  When place next to my 3rd Rail, CNS&M "Electroliner" which is the correct 1/4" scale, it looks gigantic.   For that reason it remains as an interesting "shelf queen" but does help with explanations to the uninformed.

 

Paul Fischer

Ah, that's the root of the issue.  The Lionel 9040 series boxcar and its relatives are more the exception to the rule.  And it still required some work to get it to look "right."  The other was the original Industrial Rail caboose Santa Fe style caboose, which turned out to be perfect S Scale, dimesionally.  (What in the world was IR thinking??)

 

In the past, I've seen some of my fellow S Gaugers convert 6464 style boxcars to S and even with narrowing the car body, the results (at least to me) are not convincing.  There's still something wrong, proportionally in my eyes.

 

Same goes for the former K-Line Big Boy, which Lionel released as an American Flyer S Gauge lococmotive.  Even though the locomotive is supposedly the same scale throughout,(1:60 or so) there's something about the propotions that bother me.  It sorta looks OK standing by itself, but place it next to the later 1:64 Challenger and it quickly gets filed under "close, but no cigar."

 

Anyway, as you've indicated, most "traditional O" is a potpourii of "scales,"  but seem to be at least constant along a given dimension.

 

Lionel was a master of this for the most part and if one is very selective in choosing components, a rather convincing train can be assembled even if it isn't "to scale."  Plus it looks a lot better on the sharper curves than "to scale" stuff.  I once assemble a train using a pair of 2033 Alcos and 12 select postwar 9" cars.  Man, it looked good on O-42, as good as any 1:48 scale train on O-72.

 

Rusty