S Scale "Hi Rail"...?

Strummer posted:

The reason I ask about S "Hi Rail" is this: original Flyer couplers are almost as big as Lionel "lobster claws":

Yes, I agree.

It stands to reason that if the Lionel coupler is way over-size, then the same must be said for the original Flyer, no?

That's my feeling, as well.

So I did some experimenting. Here is a Kadee S coupler on a 307 tender: I think it looks too small.

There is a Kadee O scale coupler, this time on a 302:

Eye of the beholder, I think.  I haven't actually measured to determine what is most prototypically correct, but I use Kadee HO couplers on my S equipment, and they look fine to me.  It may all come down to individual preferences,

Terms. depends on who you ask, as the cliche goes. To me there are 3 "levels": stock 3RO, Hi-Railing and 3-rail Scaling.

I am a 3RO "Hi-Railer"; I build, bash, weather, paint, decal, abhor shiny track and a bunch of other non-traditional 3RO things, but I am assuredly not a "3-Rail Scaler". To me, Hi-Railing involves all of the above, and more, all the while leaving the essential and basic as-they-came 3RO systems in place - large flanges and couplers, for example (I will frame-mount a diesel pilot when the physics work out). I do not convert to Kadee or other couplers.

You could be an AF/S Hi-Railer without going to smaller couplers, but I do admit that those AF knuckles are nearly 3RO-size. I would agree about using the O-scale Kadees on your AF-style equipment. They are still much smaller than the Flyers, but more substantial than the S. The S units actually look improperly scaled for 1:64.

Strummer posted:

I opted to ask this here, as I'd like some feedback, and I was afraid that if I put it in the "S" forum, it would not get many responses: Is there such a thing as "S Hi Rail"?

It seems to me that "3Rail Scale" is mainly putting Kadee couplers on a car; adding extra details is "optional". If I've over-simplified this, I'm sure someone will tell me. 

The reason I ask about S "Hi Rail" is this: original Flyer couplers are almost as big as Lionel "lobster claws":

It stands to reason that if the Lionel coupler is way over-size, then the same must be said for the original Flyer, no? So I did some experimenting. Here is a Kadee S coupler on a 307 tender: I think it looks too small.

There is a Kadee O scale coupler, this time on a 302:

To my eyes, this looks much better, and a reasonable compromise. Here it is compared to a Flyer original:

The nice thing I find is that you can attach a KD onto the frame of the Flyer truck simply by spreading the tabs that hold the original in place, and those same tabs will hold the Kadee. Plus, swapping back to the original is  easily done.

I'm sure a lot of you already know this, but it's new to me! Thoughts?

Mark in Oregon

There is a coupler that hits the "Goldilocks Zone" for S: The Kadee 802, which in reality the the coupler marketed to the On3 guys with a different color trip pin.  I don't have a photo of one on a Gilbert Flyer loco, but here's one on a scale-converted Flyer reefer:

And an 802 on a Flyer Legacy SD70 (right) with a Legacy ES44 (left) that hadn't been "scalified" yet:

However, it's all a matter of preference.  Whatever floats your boat.  In the S Scale world, there are still some that prefer to use the Kadee HO couplers over the 802's.  I have some pre-1985 S Scale models that have the HO Kadee's mounted and they mate just fine with the 802's, so I haven't bothered to change them.

And yes, there is such a thing as S HiRail.  It comes in two flavors: Those who use scale detailed trains with larger code rail, big flanges with Kadee couplers (like Brooks Stover of Buffalo Creek and Gauley fame) and those who do the same using the Flyer compatible couplers.  Below is straight-from-the-box HiRail S-helper Service equipment running on American Models Code 148 track:

Rusty

Thanks Rusty... 

Mark in Oregon

One question you might ask is, "Will I ever operate my trains with someone else's?"  For example, in a club or "round robin visit" type setting.  If so you'll need to do whatever the majority of your like-minded peers do (or accept limitations to inter-operability.)

Mark:

I see Rusty beat me to it on the recommendation of the Kadee 802's.  I did the "scale" side of S during my foray into that scale. Like you, I felt using the Kadee #5 type coupler resulted in the coupler looking way too small. I was quite happy with the way the 802's look and operated.

IMHO, anyone interested in S scale should seriously take a look at using Kadee 802's, staying with the AF-type flanges, and using some of the newer track offerings that use smaller code rail than AF, GarGraves, etc.

I have drooled over S scale layouts so equipped for years now (like Carl Tuevson's, Richbar's, and others), and in retrospect, I think the above choices would have helped me to be more satisfied with with S.

If you decide to dip your toe into S to see what the water's like... be sure to share your experiences with us over on the S scale forum.

Andre